AWS DMS migration Premigration assessment bug

0

Hi,

I've tried several values greater than 300 (1200, 124000, etc.) for the net read, net write and wait timeouts for my RDS MySQL instance, the Premigration assessment shows the updated values and says "No action needed" but the status is still failed. Here's the output from the latest test. My Source is an RDS MySQL 5.7 instance, the Target is an Aurora MySql 8.0 cluster.

{"test-name":"mysql-check-target-network-parameter","test-result":"failed","test-result-details":"MySQL database has one or more of net_read_timeout, net_write_timeout and wait_timeout set to less than 5 minutes. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/dms/latest/userguide/CHAP_Troubleshooting.html#CHAP_Troubleshooting.MySQL.ConnectionDisconnect for more details.","results-summary":{"passed":"0","warning":"0","failed":"1"},"results":{"passed":[],"warning":[],"failed":[{"Net Read Timeout":"12000","Net Write Timeout":"12000","Wait Timeout":"12000","Result":"Net read, net write and wait timeouts are greater than 300 seconds. No action needed.","status":"failed"}]}}

I'm not sure what else I can change, it states that there is "No action needed."

  • What is the DMS version being used? What is the task type i.e. full load only, full load + CDC or CDC only?

    I have tested a full load and CDC task with DMS versions 3.4.7, 3.5.1, 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 and do not see the issue - the pre-migration assessment is passing when the values for net_read_timeout, net_write_timeout and wait_timeout are greater than 300.

  • Full load with CDC, and DMS version is 3.5.1. I got it working after setting all timeout values across both databases to 3600 and rebooting and running the pre-assessment multiple times.

1 Answer
1

Hi everyone, I initially got the error message, then after updating my DB instance and DB Cluster parameter groups for MySQL and Aurora MySQL with the value 3600, the premigration assessment was successful.

Try reboot your DB instances after updating the parameter groups

AWS
Paul_M
answered a month ago
  • I actually tried this, and rebooted both databases multiple times. It just passed all checks, so unless the parameter check takes a while to update after reboot this may or may not have worked for me. I used larger values previously and it didn't work either so this is definitely a bug. Thank you for the suggestion though.