From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 2 08:46:00 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D24816A400 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 08:46:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from om-lists-bsd@omx.ch) Received: from omega.omnis.ch (omega.omnis.ch [195.134.143.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E64C813C448 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 08:45:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from om-lists-bsd@omx.ch) Received: (qmail 1776 invoked from network); 2 May 2007 08:45:57 -0000 Received: from bigapple.omnis.ch ([195.134.148.35]) by omega.omnis.ch ([195.134.143.43]) with ESMTP via TCP; 02 May 2007 08:45:57 -0000 From: Olivier Mueller To: Tom Evans In-Reply-To: <1178094858.1217.5.camel@zoot.mintel.co.uk> References: <20070501020721.GA44472@icarus.home.lan> <53892.209.47.38.69.1178028723.squirrel@wettoast.dyndns.org> <1178033180.1239.13.camel@zoot.mintel.co.uk> <1178052282.1279.6.camel@bigapple.omnis.ch> <1178094858.1217.5.camel@zoot.mintel.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:45:57 +0200 Message-Id: <1178095558.16168.1.camel@bigapple.omnis.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mysql frequently crash on 6.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:46:00 -0000 On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 09:34 +0100, Tom Evans wrote: > You shouldn't have to recompile mysql, just restart (as long as it is > dynamically linked; default from ports is). I'd always use mysql from > ports, as it is more targeted to freebsd. ok. > We saw key file errors when using mysql 5.0(.27 iirc), but we have in > fact moved all of our production boxes back to mysql 4.0, as 5.0 branch > seemed far too unstable, slow and error prone (not wanting to start a > holy war here, just our experiences :). Uhuh... :-) Ok, thanks for your feedback! BTW, google seems to do the same: they have coded some patches, but only for the 4.x branch (yet): http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2007/04/google-releases-patches-that-enhance.html regards, Olivier