This is a follow-up post in the MySQL Master Replication Crash Safety series.  In the previous posts, we explored the consequences of reducing durability on masters (different data inconsistencies after an OS crash depending on replication type) and the performance boost associated with this configuration (benchmark results done on Google Cloud Platform / GCP).  The consequences are summarised in

This is a follow-up post in the MySQL Master Replication Crash Safety series.  In the three previous posts, we explored the consequence of reducing durability on masters (including setting sync_binlog to a value different from 1).  But so far, I only quickly presented why a DBA would run MySQL with such configuration.  In this post, I present actual benchmark results.  I also present a

This is a follow-up post in the MySQL Master Replication Crash Safety series.  In the two previous posts, we explored the consequence of reducing durability on masters (including setting sync_binlog to a value different than 1) when slaves are using legacy file+position replication.  In this post, we cover GTID replication.  This introduces a new inconsistency scenario with a potential

This is Part #2 of the MySQL Master Replication Crash Safety series.  In the previous post, we explored the consequence of reducing durability on masters with slaves using legacy file+position replication.  The consequences are data inconsistencies with a clear warning sign: the slaves stop replicating and report an error.  In this post, we extend our understanding of the impact of running a

A well-known performance booster in MySQL is to set sync_binlog to 0.  However, this configuration alone comes with serious consequences on consistency and on durability (the C and D of ACID); I explore those in this series.  In this post, I give some background on the sync_binlog parameter and I explain part of the problem with setting it to 0 (or to a value different from 1).  The other