I'm using mysqld in CLI mode on a windowsME system

For my purpose I need to start and stop mySQL in a dos batch file.
This works fine.

Except I have more than one batch file that does this for various purposes.

My problem is: I can't find a way to start mysqld in such a way that it doesnt
error out if its already running. Ideally I'd like the second application
just just work without shutting down the first - first.

Is there a way I can do this - perhaps a command I've missed to ignore
this startup error?

At present I just start it with: mysqld --defaults-file=c:\mysql\my.ini

Thanks

Paul
----------------------

On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:24:34 +0200, <paul.p@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> I'm using mysqld in CLI mode on a windowsME system
>
> For my purpose I need to start and stop mySQL in a dos batch file.
> This works fine.
>
> Except I have more than one batch file that does this for various
> purposes.
>
> My problem is: I can't find a way to start mysqld in such a way that it
> doesnt
> error out if its already running. Ideally I'd like the second application
> just just work without shutting down the first - first.
>
> Is there a way I can do this - perhaps a command I've missed to ignore
> this startup error?

If your batch files are also stopping the server, how do you think your
batch scripts will react as a previous script just shuts down the server
for them?

What is the reason you need it stopped? It's not like it's a resource
hugger when it's idle. At any rate, I'd use mysqladmin to ping it I guess.


On a side note, I've enjoyed myself just now with a totally idle mysql,
being able to predict the process id of mysqladmin gives on the
opportunity to:

mysqladmin kill <id of mysqladmin>
.... which will fail by succeeding. On that rather zen note, I'm clocking
of for today.
--
Rik Wasmus
....spamrun finished

On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:14:21 +0200, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>If your batch files are also stopping the server, how do you think your
>batch scripts will react as a previous script just shuts down the server
>for them?
>
Obviously that doesnt happen and isnt relevant to the question asked.

>What is the reason you need it stopped? It's not like it's a resource
>hugger when it's idle. At any rate, I'd use mysqladmin to ping it I guess.

It needs to be shut down when finished with - that shouldnt even arise as
a question. Again not relevant.

The question is how do I get it to ignore the error. Ideally I dont
want to have to start calling other processes.

The ping is a last resort but thank you for the suggestion.

Paul
-----------------

On May 22, 8:58 am, pau...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:14:21 +0200, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If your batch files are also stopping the server, how do you think your
> >batch scripts will react as a previous script just shuts down the server
> >for them?
>
> Obviously that doesnt happen and isnt relevant to the question asked.
>
> >What is the reason you need it stopped? It's not like it's a resource
> >hugger when it's idle. At any rate, I'd use mysqladmin to ping it I guess.
>
> It needs to be shut down when finished with - that shouldnt even arise as
> a question. Again not relevant.
>

It's perfectly relevant. Read this:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#goal>

On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:58:17 +0200, <paul.p@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:14:21 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
> <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If your batch files are also stopping the server, how do you think your
>> batch scripts will react as a previous script just shuts down the server
>> for them?
>>
> Obviously that doesnt happen and isnt relevant to the question asked.

Obviously? So, what method do you employ there? If batch files stop your
MySQL server, and they don't stop it if another process is working on it,
that would mean they keep track of it somehow, and possibly the same
mechanism could be used for not starting MySQL when it's allready started
as not closing MySQL when it's still needed. I vote very likely relevant.

>> What is the reason you need it stopped? It's not like it's a resource
>> hugger when it's idle. At any rate, I'd use mysqladmin to ping it I
>> guess.
>
> It needs to be shut down when finished with - that shouldnt even arise as
> a question. Again not relevant.

Shouldnt't it? I'd go for the most practical solution in most cases, which
here seems to me just letting it keep running. Perfectly suitable a
practical solution to your problem, not to you theoretical one, no. I'd
say very relevant to the problem at hand, not to your question, but I
usually prefer looking at problems rather then questions, usually gives
far better results.

> The question is how do I get it to ignore the error.

If all you're after is ignoring?

mysqld 2> nul
--
Rik Wasmus
....spamrun finished

On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:09:33 +0200, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>usually prefer looking at problems rather then questions, usually gives
>far better results.

No - what it does is gives you the opportunity to waffle on about anything
you like when you dont know the answer to the question being asked.

This pollutes threads wastes everybodies time and is totally unhelpful.

If you dont know the answer to the question asked keep quiet.

enough@now.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:09:33 +0200, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> usually prefer looking at problems rather then questions, usually gives
>> far better results.
>
> No - what it does is gives you the opportunity to waffle on about anything
> you like when you dont know the answer to the question being asked.
>
> This pollutes threads wastes everybodies time and is totally unhelpful.
>
> If you dont know the answer to the question asked keep quiet.
>
>

No, Rik is one of the most knowledgeable people here, and is question is
quite on topic.

YOU'RE the one asking for help here. Just because YOU don't think
something is pertinent doesn't mean someone more knowledgeable has the
same opinion.

If you don't want to answer the questions, I suggest you look elsewhere
for help. Like the book store.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:07:44 +0200, <enough@now.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:09:33 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
> <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> usually prefer looking at problems rather then questions, usually gives
>> far better results.
>
> No - what it does is gives you the opportunity to waffle on about
> anything
> you like when you dont know the answer to the question being asked.

I don't deal in questions, I deal in problems. 95% of technical questions
asked in usenet are far better served with a different approach to the
problem then an exact answer. In some cases, people might even be grateful
for having vulnerabilities pointed out they didn't realise themselves yet.
If one chooses to ignore valid suggestions and questions, that can usually
mean one of 3 things:
1) It's a homework question.
2) Someone far out if his or hers depth has promised some exact
functionality without even knowing wether this was possible and how, and
tries to make others disguise his or her incompetance.
3) The poster is a one-trick monkey incapable of grasping any solution not
solely consisting of the narrow spectrum of the material at hand, which
was probably learned by exclusively employing copied scripts without any
incling of the actual mechanisms.

All three cases are a waste of my time. I'm sorry I spend even a second on
you, please accept my apologies for thinking you actually wanted help.

> This pollutes threads wastes everybodies time and is totally unhelpful.
>
> If you dont know the answer to the question asked keep quiet.

Kindly pay MySQL for support, as I doubt anyone will suffer this kind of
ignorant abuse for free. I do have one request though: keep using your
probably bogus paul.p@nospam.com & enough@now.com addresses. It makes
filtering so much easier.

/off
--
Rik Wasmus
....spamrun finished

On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:30:36 +0200, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:07:44 +0200, <enough@now.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:09:33 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
>> <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> usually prefer looking at problems rather then questions, usually gives
>>> far better results.
>>
>> No - what it does is gives you the opportunity to waffle on about
>> anything
>> you like when you dont know the answer to the question being asked.
>
>I don't deal in questions, I deal in problems.

plonk.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 11:22:37 +0200, <by@bye.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:30:36 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
> <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:07:44 +0200, <enough@now.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:09:33 +0200, "Rik Wasmus"
>>> <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> usually prefer looking at problems rather then questions, usually
>>>> gives
>>>> far better results.
>>>
>>> No - what it does is gives you the opportunity to waffle on about
>>> anything
>>> you like when you dont know the answer to the question being asked.
>>
>> I don't deal in questions, I deal in problems.
>
> plonk.
>

Damn, couldn't grant me that final request, could you? Plonked the other
addresses allready, if you would do me the courtesy te make it somewhat
easy to plonk you, I'd hate to flesh out IP ranges as your IP seems to be
dynamic.
--
Rik Wasmus
....spamrun finished