On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:30:21PM -0500, Jackson Miller wrote: > I am going to have to put MySQL on it's own box, and I am wondering what makes > the biggest difference with hardware. > > I am hoping to set max_connections to 1000 at least (and I will probably use > at least 500 several times a day). > > There are a few tables that are almost constantly running inserts, updates, > and selects (they are InnoDB). These tables have millions of records. > > There are many other tables that are used less frequently. > > I mostly need the inserts, selects, and updates to be FAST with a high > concurrency. > > Will I see the biggest difference by: > 1) maxing out the ram > 2) faster processors > 3) faster drives > 4) more drives > 5) more processors > > Also, I am curious if RAID or replication would be faster in my situation.
In my expierience, the priority order tends to be: (1) more drives (2) faster drives (3) memory (4) more cpus (5) faster cpus Because you're likely I/O bound. So you hit the disks first. Then memory, which can be used to cache frequently used data. Last you look at the CPU(s). Today's CPUs are so damned fast, that you're often hard pressed to really max 'em out if your queries are well tuned--you just end up waiting on the disks. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 4.0.13: up 7 days, processed 252,540,858 queries (399/sec. avg) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
