If you use Percona Server 5.5 and you have configured it to use multiple buffer pool instances than sooner or later you’ll see the following lines on the server’s error log and chances are you’ll be worried about them:

InnoDB: detected cycle in LRU for buffer pool 5, skipping to next buffer pool.
InnoDB: detected cycle in LRU for buffer pool 3, skipping to next buffer pool.
InnoDB: detected cycle in LRU for buffer pool 7, skipping to next buffer pool.

Worry not as this is mostly harmless. It’s becoming a February tradition for me (Fernando) to face a question about this subject (ok, it’s maybe a coincidence) and this time I’ve teamed up with my dear colleague and software engineer George Lorch to provide you the most complete blog post ever published on this topic … (with a belated thank you! to Ernie Souhrada, with whom I’ve also discussed this same …

A common migration path from standalone MySQL/Percona Server to a Percona XtraDB Cluster (PXC) environment involves some measure of time where one node in the new cluster has been configured as a slave of the production master that the cluster is slated to replace. In this way, the new cluster acts as a slave of the production environment – traditional replication takes care of getting the data into the cluster, and then Galera replication handles the intra-cluster traffic. This often works without issue, although there is one case that I’ve encountered recently where special care must be taken to properly configure the stream to ensure that replication does not break. If you use multi-valued inserts with auto-increment columns, then this post is for you.

For purposes of our discussion, assume that we have a basic 3-node PXC cluster that we’ve set up …

This comes from an issue that I worked on recently, wherein a customer reported that their application was working fine under stock MySQL 5.6 but producing erroneous results when they tried running it on Amazon RDS 5.6. They had a table which, on the working server, contained two TIMESTAMP columns, one which defaulted to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and the other which defaulted to ’0000-00-00 00:00:00′, like so:

CREATE TABLE mysql56 (
  id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
  ts1 TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
  ts2 TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
);

However, under Amazon RDS, the same table looked like this:

CREATE TABLE rds56 ( 
  id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
  ts1 TIMESTAMP NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  ts2 TIMESTAMP NULL DEFAULT NULL, 
);

They mentioned that their schema contains TIMESTAMP column definitions without any modifiers for nullability or …

If you’ve been following this blog (my colleague, David Busby, posted about it yesterday) or any tech news outlet in the past few days, you’ve probably seen some mention of the “Heartbleed” vulnerability in certain versions of the OpenSSL library.

So what is ‘Heartbleed’, really?

In short, Heartbleed is an information-leak issue. An attacker can exploit this bug to retrieve the contents of a server’s memory without any need for local access. According to the researchers that discovered it, this can be done without leaving any trace of compromise on the system. In other words, if you’re vulnerable, they can steal your keys and you won’t even notice that they’ve gone missing. I use the word “keys” literally here; by being able to access the contents of the impacted service’s memory, the attacker is …

This is part two on a two-part series on the performance implications of in-flight data encryption with MySQL. In the first part, I focused specifically on the impact of using MySQL’s built-in SSL support with some rather surprising results. Certainly it was expected that query throughput would be lower with SSL than without, but I was rather surprised by the magnitude of the performance hit incurred at connection setup time. These results naturally lended themselves to some further investigation; in particular, I wanted to compare performance differences between MySQL’s built-in SSL encryption facilities and external encryption technologies, such as SSH tunneling. I’ll also be using this post to address a couple of questions posed in the comments on my original article. So, without further ado….

Test Environment

The …

NOTE: This is part 1 of what will be a two-part series on the performance implications of using in-flight data encryption.

Some of you may recall my security webinar from back in mid-August; one of the follow-up questions that I was asked was about the performance impact of enabling SSL connections. My answer was 25%, based on some 2011 data that I had seen over on yaSSL’s website, but I included the caveat that it is workload-dependent, because the most expensive part of using SSL is establishing the connection. Not long thereafter, I received a request to conduct some more specific benchmarks surrounding SSL usage in MySQL, and today I’m going to show the results.

First, the testing …

Thanks to everyone who attended last week’s webinar on MySQL security; hopefully you’ve all gone out and set SELinux to enforcing mode if you weren’t already running that way. If you weren’t able to attend, the recording and slides are available for viewing/download. But now, without further ado, here are the questions which we didn’t have time to cover during the presentation.

Q: Do you have a favorite software firewall you recommend that I can run on an EC2 instance in front of my MySQL server?
A: I’d probably just do this with iptables. Any of the other Linux-based software firewall packages are all going to be wrappers around iptables anyway. However, if …

My colleague and teammate Ernie Souhrada will be presenting a webinar on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 at 10 a.m. PDT titled “MySQL Security: Armoring Your Dolphin.”

This is a popular topic with news breaking routinely that yet another Internet company has leaked private data of one form or another. Ernie’s webinar will be a great overview of security MySQL from top to bottom, including changes related to security in the 5.6 release.

Topics to be covered include:

• Basic …

This is part 3 of a 3 part series covering the new InnoDB full-text search features in MySQL 5.6. To catch up on the previous parts, see part 1 or part 2

Some of you may recall a few months ago that I promised a third part in my InnoDB full-text search (FTS) series, in which I’d actually take a look at the performance of InnoDB FTS in MySQL 5.6 versus traditional MyISAM FTS. I hadn’t planned on quite such a gap between part 2 and part 3, but as they say, better late than never. Recall that we have been working with two data sets, one which I call SEO (8000-keyword-stuffed web pages) and the other which I call DIR (800K directory records), and we are comparing MyISAM FTS in …

Thanks to everyone who was in attendance on 05 June 2013 for my “Choosing a MySQL HA Solution” webinar. If you weren’t able to make it but are interested in listening to the presentation, it’s currently up and available for viewing over at percona.com.

My apologies if we weren’t able to get to your question during the initial session, so I’ll address those lingering questions in this post, along with providing a bit more detail on some of the questions that I did cover during the session.

Q: What is the reason that I recommended DRBD be used only on physical hardware and not on virtual machines?
A: I covered this a bit during the session, but to provide a bit more commentary. There …