[Pdns-users] Forklift upgrade from 2.9.22 to 3.3.1-1

AJ McKee aj.mckee at druid-dns.com
Wed Jan 28 20:37:44 UTC 2015

Hi Steven,

I went through this process sometime ago, and like you changed to mixed
mode replication for the MySQL backend.

If your underlying tables follow the pdns vanilla install, you should not
encounter any problem, in fact you should see a good improvement on the
performance of MySQL replication. This is assuming you have no other DB
that is being replicated.

If you have customised your tables, or have a custom application accessing
the DB, then it would be worthy to do a review of the query patterns
(Enable query logging) to evaluate if there are any pitfalls. In particular
watch out for queries that affect a large dataset within your application,
however MIXED mode should determine the correct strategy to use.

An excellent write up on Statement, Row and Mixed modes is here;
and explains it much better than I or the MySQL docs could.

In short, I can't see any disadvantage to MIXED mode, but of course it
depends on your setup.

Best of luck

On 28 January 2015 at 18:24, Steven Spencer <steven.spencer at kdsi.com> wrote:

> Greetings,
> We have been using PDNS with gmysql back end for a long time and because
> of some legacy Xen server retirement projects, We have decided to do a
> forklift upgrade of our PDNS install at the same time. Currently, our
> primary and secondary DNS servers are using 2.9.22 and we will be moving to
> 3.3.1-1. I've read all of the upgrade notes with the mysql schema changes,
> etc., and those items will be no issue to accomplish. My concern is that we
> are doing database replication using the old style replication methodology
> (not the mysql cluster methodology) and I'm wondering what, if anything,
> the change in the binlog_format from STATEMENT, which is what it currently
> is, to MIXED will do to replication.
> Our current set up is a mysql DNS master server that has the web front-end
> on it and is set up as the master for the database with both the primary
> and secondary DNS servers set as slaves to this machine. We also have
> external pdns-recursor machines that were recently updated to 3.6.2-1 and
> are working fine. Our implementation is on CentOS 5 (currently) and will be
> moving to CentOS 6.
> Thanks for any light that you might be able to shed on this process.
> --
> --
> Steven G. Spencer, Network Administrator
> _______________________________________________
> Pdns-users mailing list
> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users

AJ McKee
phone: +353 83 1130 545
profile:  http://linkedin.com/in/ajmkee
jid:       aj.mckee at druid-dns.com
blog:    http://aj.mc-kee.com/
twitter: @ajmckee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/attachments/20150128/852f1e37/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Pdns-users mailing list