On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:24:02PM +0000, Alan Brown wrote:
> On 26/02/13 09:42, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:
> 
> >I wonder if dumping the file table and then
> >re-importing it to an innodb replacement would have been quicker?
> 
> In general: Yes.
> 
> 

Hi folks,

last night I managed to shrink a 300GB File table down to a very
reasonable 85GB by exporting, dropping and re-importing the table
(about 500 million rows). 

Dumping the table on an idle bacula server (see earlier posts for
machine specs) took around 90 minutes and resulted in a 55GB sql
file. Dropping the table was a breeze (about a minute or so),
re-importing took around 3 hours: 


date ; time mysql -pn1onex bacula <  file_2013_03_20.sql  ; date
Mi 20. Mär 22:35:14 CET 2013

real    165m12.748s
user    15m17.358s
sys     1m2.320s
Do 21. Mär 01:20:27 CET 2013

Post-Import File table size: 

-rw-rw---- 1 mysql mysql 8,7K 20. Mär 22:35 File.frm
-rw-rw---- 1 mysql mysql  83G 21. Mär 01:20 File.ibd

I hope you find this information useful when planning a migration from
myisam to innodb. Feel free to post here if you have further questions
or require more details.

All the best, Uwe 


-- 
NIONEX --- Ein Unternehmen der Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users