Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Closed (View Workflow)
-
Major
-
Resolution: Incomplete
-
10.11.3
-
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.9
Description
We upgraded from 10.4.15 to 10.11.3 on November 09.
After the upgrade, the index of the Master node table was corrupted twice.
Both times, it was the same table, and after dropping the table, we dumped the data of the Slave and recovered it.
2024-11-20 2:04:11 4299263 [ERROR] mariadbd: Index for table 'message' is corrupt; try to repair it |
2024-11-20 2:04:11 4299257 [ERROR] InnoDB: We detected index corruption in an InnoDB type table. You have to dump + drop + reimport the table or, in a case of widespread corruption, dump all InnoDB tables and recreate the whole tablespace. If the mariadbd server crashes after the startup or when you dump the tables. Please refer to https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/innodb-recovery-modes/ for information about forcing recovery. |
2024-12-07 1:57:45 11642302 [ERROR] mariadbd: Index for table 'message' is corrupt; try to repair it |
2024-12-07 1:57:45 11642301 [ERROR] InnoDB: We detected index corruption in an InnoDB type table. You have to dump + drop + reimport the table or, in a case of widespread corruption, dump all InnoDB tables and recreate the whole tablespace. If the mariadbd server crashes after the startup or when you dump the tables. Please refer to https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/innodb-recovery-modes/ for information about forcing recovery. |
The table is about 100G and is used only for batches.
The batch query is performed in 0.1 seconds at 02:00 and is performed a total of 5 times.
In this regard, I attach my.cnf, table syntax, and batch query.
Since it is an operational environment, it is impossible to upgrade to 10.11.10 without identifying the exact cause.
- Can searching and updating with multiple (320) PKs in the IN clause cause problems?
- Can it be affected by the column order of the message_published_idx index (PK column is last)?
- Is there a way to avoid index corrupt by changing settings, etc.?
- Is there a way to reproduce the index corruption?
Attachments
Activity
Note that 10.11.10 that included MDEV-34453 didn't include a RPM package for RHEL7 because its end of life.
If I use MariaDB 10.11.10 in RHEL 7, is there any side effect?
And has mariabackup any difference between RPM and engine binary file?
> If I use MariaDB 10.11.10 in RHEL 7, is there any side effect?
Not being able to install due to ABI differences in dependences, and if you get past that it wont' start.
|
installling RHEL8 on Centos 7 |
Error: Package: MariaDB-server-10.11.11-1.el8.x86_64 (mariadb)
|
Requires: libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.4)(64bit)
|
Error: Package: MariaDB-server-10.11.11-1.el8.x86_64 (mariadb)
|
Requires: libcrypt.so.1(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit)
|
Error: Package: MariaDB-client-10.11.11-1.el8.x86_64 (mariadb)
|
Requires: perl(warnings)
|
Error: Package: MariaDB-client-10.11.11-1.el8.x86_64 (mariadb)
|
Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
|
> And has mariabackup any difference between RPM and engine binary file?
I don't know what engine binary file is referring to, however there's nothing particularly special about how Mariabackup is packaged for RPM.
I mean that I install MariaDB 10.11.10 using binary.
Because of not being install using RPM package, I installed MariaDB 10.11.10 using binary, so I want to know there is any side effect or not in RHEL 7.
MariaDB Server 10.11.3 was released in May 2023. Since then, there have been many fixes to some data corruption bugs, such as
MDEV-34453andMDEV-32511. Can you reproduce this with a more recent version of MariaDB Server, such as 10.11.10?