On Sunday 17 December 2006 13:20, Mike Duffy wrote: > My intuitive judgment is that we would be better having several smaller > systems in a cluster rather than one huge powerful system and that we would > be better off building rather than than buying. If you think I am wrong on > either of these points, please share your thoughts and send a link to a > recommended system.
Well, this gets tricky. If you take a look at: http://www.mysql.com/products/database/cluster/faq.html you'll notice very high requirements for each cluster node. This is mainly due to the fact that mysql clustering does not support filesystem writes (right now at least, I've heard that's supported later). That said, the database has to be stored into memory. If you have a 10 node cluster supporting a 5 gig database, that means all 10 boxes have to have 5+gigs of memory, otherwise it won't work. A single system is a bit easier to manage, but you have to be extra particular about your failsafes, as you've now centralized the point of failure to 1 machine. On the other hand, should your database grow, you just feed it more ram and be done with it, or upgrade the server later on (if you get a really large db). -- Chris White PHP Programmer Interfuel -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
