On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:58, Chris White wrote: > performance?". From what I know of MySQL, not really, because MySQL does a > good amount of work in memory. The only time I'd see disk access being a > factor is if you had a large mass of swap/virtual memory.
I have to play with 300 gig of data (and growing). MySQL cannot keep enough of the indexes in memory unfortunately - not when the index for one of the tables is 6 gig. Whether you use SATA, PATA or SCSI (on the back of FC), the answer for speed is spindle rotation speed and number of heads. There's a reason that the older HP9000 boxes used disk packs full of 9 GB drives - heads. SCSI has the advantage (for now at least) of being designed in a manner that lets it do 'things' faster. Oh, as a small example - the DB server attached to the SAN can pull data faster than my personal server, even though the personal server is only dealing with one request and the DB/SAN is dealing with hundreds per second (and the personal server is no slouch). Fun to watch all the SAN disk lights light up when that happens. -- Scanned by iCritical. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
