What exactly is the performance problem you are seeing?
Have you checked to make sure all your memory is being utilized? ie, not just grabbed by MySQL, but actually in use? -Sheeri On 5/24/06, Dan Trainor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Moritz Möller wrote: > Hi Dan, > > there are about 2GB free, so the net size would still be 32 GB. > > The queries are really optimized, >99.9% of all queries can be satisfied > without table scans. > > Well, I guess I have to give NDB a chance, I hope it will help. The only > alternative I come to is to cluster the database on application level (use > server userID%numServers), which would be a [insert favourite non-swear-word > here] lot of work ;) > > Moritz > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Trainor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:41 AM > To: Moritz Möller; mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: Re: mysql performance > > Moritz Möller wrote: > >>Hi list, >> >>we're running some large high-traffic mysql servers, and are currently >>reaching the limit of our machines. >> >>We're using mysql 4.1 / innodb on debian, ibdata is about 35GB. Hardware > > is > >>quad xeon dualcore, 8 GB RAM. Disk-io is nearly zero, limiting factor is >>CPU. >>The queries run very fast (I seldom see a process that's running longer > > than > >>a second), but there are too many of them, I guess. >> >>As far as I know, NDB keeps the whole database in memory, so with indices >>and some mem as reserve, we'd need ~48GB (3x16 or something) in total for >>NDB :( >> >>Does someone know other solutions to this? Is NDB the only storage engine >>supporting clustering? >> >>Thanks in advantage, >> >>Moritz >> >> >> > > > Hi - > > That's quite a large database. I, too, have been dealing with what I > thought was a large database for this new project. Being 2G, it hardly > compares to your database size. > > Keep in mind, however, that a 36G ibdata file does not necessarily mean > that you are using 36G to store data. InnoDB documents from the MySQL > site explain ways to compact these files, possibly shrinking the size of > ibdata files. Another way to get a better idea of how much data you're > actually using is to use the 'SHOW TABLE STATUS' query from within > MySQL. Take the "InnoDB Free:" item under the 'Comment:' column, and > subtract this from the total size of the ibdata file(s). This will give > you a more accurate representation of how much of that ibdata file > you're actually using. I think. (Someone mind correcting me if I'm way > off here?) > > NDB may not be your solution. Even though disk-based storage is > included with NDB in 5.1 and beyond, I'm not too sure how this will > affect the speed of your operations. I suppose it's worth a try, however. > > Please take this advise with a grain of salt, as InnoDB is still quite > new to me, as well. Other things I've found to speed up large databases > are to properly make indexes, and testing them with the EXPLAIN > function. This alone has let me to speed up our operations as much as > 30% in most cases. > > Thanks > -dant > > Hi - Well, go ahead and do that and let us know how it turns out. There's a whole mailing list on cluster. Like I said, 5.1 (don't remember specifically which version) has file-based storage for cluster as an option. Good luck with that. Thanks! -dant -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
