The assumption is that 1 server = 1 server. A high performance DB server with multiple PSUs and 2 trays of disks consumes plenty of power. A rack full of 40 1Us also consumes plenty of power as well.
Full analysis of the power/mips is something I think only people like yahoo and google has done. I don't really have the resources, but I suspect that, like everything, "it depends". You can probably fudge the numbers to look good both ways. On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Wim Van Leuven <wim.vanleu...@highestpoint.biz> wrote: > So true on the mySQL part ... and indeed he is missing the whole point. > > He also mentions, power consumption. Anybody anything to say on that when > comparing one large server (with storage etc) against a "comparable size" > cluster? > > I read somewhere about a company building rack mountable servers based on > miniITX boards, putting 2 cards in one housing. When each of them is > equipped with a high efficient PSU, the wattage should be extremely low. Or > maybe something like this (http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/cluster/) for > DIY use? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com] > Sent: donderdag 26 november 2009 10:36 > To: hbase-user@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: Hilarious presentation on NoSQL ... > > I wonder, if you never have found the need for bigtable-like data > storage system, maybe you've just never had the problem? > > So one thing he is forgetting is that all the things he derides > 'nosql' databases for eschewing, we _already avoid them on mysql right > now_ due to scalability problems! Joins, indexes, schemas, > transactions are all mysql features that cause problems at scale, yes > even with innodb. Or especially with innodb perhaps? > > Apparently Google has a 44PB bigtable instance, my particular > challenge to mr Aker is "how would you use mysql or drizzle to store > 44 PB in an unified manner?" ie: no after-the fact sharding > (cheating imho). > > Then there is the hardware scalability problems with databases... > maybe he's ok with $500,000 machines. We are not. > > I just see this talk as "old guard derides the new kids for lacking > all the awesome features we have". Particularly ironic since myisam > kind of sucks and mysql has traditionally been > anti-transactions/foreign keys. Obviously times change since mysql > supports all those features now, but I just view it as mysql becoming > the establishment database like oracle. > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Wim Van Leuven > <wim.vanleu...@highestpoint.biz> wrote: >> True statements? Lies? Certainly missing crucial points! But worth > watching >> . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhnGarRsKnA >> >> -- >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Wim Van Leuven >> >> > >
