Thanks you all, I will consider all the suggestion, and I will communicate with the client. You all are so kind :)
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Andrew Braithwaite < andrew.braithwa...@lovefilm.com> wrote: > One word: Backups! > > If your potential client must restrict you to one server then your > primary consideration in this design must be backups, this cannot be > stressed enough. > > One server with 4GB main memory should be fine for your 24GB database > with small monthly growth and low number of users, you should be fine > using InnoDB with the default settings or perhaps some my.cnf tuning for > your particular needs (look at the www.mysqlperformanceblog.com archives > for some tips on that). > > But you absolutely must consider backups, if they already have a backup > server then look at using the free version of zmanda or some other > backup scripts. If not then you could consider using Amazon S3 as a > backup solution, it's easy to use and quite cheap too. > > Cheers, > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Streicher [mailto:co...@obviouslymalicious.com] > Sent: 05 September 2009 05:16 > To: mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: Re: 1 Machine with 4 GB RAM for Big Size MySQL Data Size > > On Friday 04 September 2009 08:15:35 pm muhammad subair wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:10 AM, mos <mo...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > At 11:48 AM 9/4/2009, you wrote: > > >> One of my potential clients want to migrate their application to > web > > >> based (PHP & MySQL), estimates of the data size is 24GB and growth > per > > >> month is 20MB of data. Unfortunately, they could only use 1 sever > > >> machine with 4GB RAM. > > >> > > >> The application used in intranet, just running simple transactions > and > > >> the number of users concurent is under 10. > > >> > > >> I need information and suggestion about this condition, whether the > > >> effort spent on implementation and future maintenance is not too > large > > >> for use MySQL with this condition? > > >> > > >> *btw sorry for my English* > > >> > > >> Thanks you very much, > > >> -- > > >> Muhammad Subair > > > > > > Muhammad, > > > It will depend on your queries and how efficiently you write > them. A > > > poorly constructed query on a 24MB table will perform worse than an > > > optimized query on a 24GB table. If you can show us your table > structure > > > and query example, (are you joining tables?), then we can guestimate > > > better. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > > > > Thank you for the feedback and input from all friends. > > > > Currently I have yet enter the design phase, just survey phase to get > the > > information about the data which will migrate from the legacy > application. > > Fyi, the input data which will migrate to MySQL is txt and not normal > for > > Relational Database. > > > > Based on existing feedbacks, I conclude that this project makes sense > and > > can be continued. Perhaps with a note of the problem in vailure single > > point because there is only 1 server. > > > > Furthermore if there is progress again, I'll try sharing. > > > > Thank you very much > > > Perhaps its worth looking at a master-slave relationship between 2 > servers if > you are concerned about a single point of failure. > > Colin > -- > There is a 20% chance of tomorrow. > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=andrew.braithwa...@lovefilm.com > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=msub...@gmail.com > > -- Muhammad Subair
