I'd recommend RAID 10 - with 4 disks instead of 2, you'll roughly double performance over RAID 1, both for reading and writing.
You might also look at 6 disks - 4 73's in RAID 10 for your data, plus 2 smaller, slower less expensive disks in RAID 1 (18 gb or 36 gb maybe) for your boot disks. As far as I know, the way to reclaim space from innodb is to use file-per-table and then OPTIMIZE the tables. http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=14206 Need 4.1 or newer. HTH, Dan On 8/2/06, Tripp Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan, Thanks for the input. We're trying to build our version of a high performance box. The basic specs are: Dual Opteron 265 (dual core) CPU 8 GB of RAM 140 GB RAID 10 (4 x 72GB 15K RPM SCCI) Adaptec SCCI 2130SLP (Single Channel) RAID controller KISS is always a good idea. I'm not sure whether to go RAID 1 or RAID 10. I like the idea of spreading the disk i/o out and trying to minimize the impact of disks on the db performance. One the otherhand it's new territory for me so I don't know all of the ins and outs, which is a little disconcerting. Part of my motivation for chopping things up is that I'm interested in having some control over where MySQL puts stuff. I'd also like to find a way to regain disk space. Right now we have all of our data being written to ibdata1 so we have this massive file and never shrinks. It's now 27GBs. We have about 12GB of data so there a huge amount of wasted space. Isn't it true that by having each table in it's own idb file that you can recover disk space when records are deleted? I know that if you have a monolithic ibdata1 file that even dropping a database won't recover disk space. That's really what I want to avoid. Thanks again for sharing your ideas. Cheers, Tripp --- Dan Buettner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tripp, YMMV, but I'm a firm believer that keeping > things as simple as > possible pays big dividends. > > I believe the advice to spread out IO tasks among > different disks is > good advice, when dealing with direct-attached disks > you deal with > directly (i.e. not part of a RAID). The setup and > maintenance is not > inconsiderable, however, and performance will lag > behind an array no > matter what you do. > > If you're building a high-performance server, you > may well want to > consider moving away from individual disks and using > hardware RAID for > performance and redundancy. > > Once you're on such a device, you need to spend > less/no time worrying > about directing data to individual disks, because > all your data is > spread among mutiple disk spindles and can also use > RAM caching in the > device. You also likely have the option of > dedicating a group of > disks within the device for logging, while still > utilizing all that > hardware RAID has to offer. > > At my last job, we used an Apple XServe RAID to host > our MySQL data, > and performance was astounding. We also used Sun > 3310 arrays to host > our Sybase data, and performance was likewise > astounding, though setup > and administration was more complex than the Apple > (you had more > options too though). I say "astounding" considering > what these > advanced little boxes cost, which is just several > thousand dollars. > > The Apple box has been certified on Mac OS X, > Windows, Linux and > Netware, so it's pretty versatile. There are also > PCI card solutions > that let you create a hardware RAID within your > server box of course - > ATA, SATA, and SCSI. Lots of options to choose from > so you can select > what fits your needs and budget. > > If you're wanting to build a high-availability > setup, two server boxes > with one Apple RAID, each using half the array, > could be a very good > setup, insulating you from hardware and software > disasters. Expense > is relative - I'd estimate you'd be looking at $25K > for such a setup, > easily more depending on your server boxes. You can > do the same thing > with many SCSI arrays (Sun 3310/3320s included) with > some advanced > setup work. > > Hope this helps, > Dan > > > On 8/1/06, Tripp Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Howdy all, > > > > We're looking at building a new database server > and > > I'm looking into strategies for optimizing disk > i/o. > > > > Bit of background. We will be running a single > > database on this box under MySQL 5.0.15. All of > the > > tables are INNODB. We have about 130 tables in the > db. > > > > I've read that it's a good idea to have the innodb > log > > files written out to a seperate physical drive so > that > > those operations don't bog down the rest of the > > database disk I/O operations. Configuring INNODB > to do > > that looks straightforward. > > > > Then there's the data. I know that I can create > > multiple shared table spaces and locate them on > > seperate disks but that doesn't seem to give me > > control over where individual tables' data are > written > > on the disk array. Is there a way using > > innodb_file_per_table to control where the > individual > > .idb files are located in the disk array? Do I > have to > > use symbolic links to trick innodb or is there a > > cleaner way? > > > > Also, I've been told that innodb table spaces > never > > shrink. Is this true or is there a way to > periodically > > cleanup the idb files to reclaim unused space? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tripp > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > MySQL General Mailing List > > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
