Hi Alec, You are not mentioning the "application", if this is a web-based application/interface or some "internal heavy stuff".
I'm running Windows 2000 and MySQL (and are happy, sleep fine every night !) for web-sites, and have only a P4 1.6 processor - and this is working very fine so far. So, if You are running a web-based application/interface, You have to focus on harddisk speed and security/redundency and LAN-I/O (100Mbit is fine), the remaining hardware will cover very well. Best regards Peter Copenhagen Denmark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sasha Pachev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: Dream MySQL Server? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > I have a requirement for a system that is of the order of 8-10 times the > > size of my current system. Unfortunately (a) I don't know how many times > > larger it actually is, and (b) my current system, while very happy, even > > relaxed, on its current hardware, has not yet been subjected to the full > > rigour of the target number of users. So it is very difficult to estimate > > what hardware I need to specify for the new system. > > > > Fortunately, the budget is fairly generous. Obviously, we don't want to > > gold-plate the system - but if a bit of overspend gives > > faster-than-specified performance, that will be a gain rather than wasted > > money. So I can get a lot of hardware - if I can confidently state that it > > will improve MySQL performance. So what should I be planning to use? > > > > The database is quite small - 2-4 Gb, but high churn: maybe 25% of it > > replaced every day. Reads dominate writes, but not overwhelmingly: at a > > guess, 10:1. The current hardware is dual Xeon 2.0, 2Gb, single Scsi disk. > > The one fixed factor is that the OS is Windows 2000 (I know the arguments > > for Linux/BSD, but that is not feasible). > > > > Scanning a PC manufacturer's website, it seems easy to get 4x2.5GHz Xeon, > > 1Mb L3, 8Gb ram, dual 15000 rpm Scsi with Raid 1 (for performance as well > > as reliability). > > > > Does this sound balanced for a MySQL engine? Or what would other people > > advise? > > My advice is that in the end, hardware does not matter that much. If it solves a > problem, it solves it until your data outgrows it again, and eventually you hit > your budget limitations and cannot afford an upgrade. Of course, there are > certain common sense rules that need to be followed, eg. if you have a 20 GB > database, you need at least a 20 GB disk, but otherwise, if your application is > good, it runs well on modest hardware, and if not, doubling the data is likely > to kill it no matter how powerful hardware you use on it. A good case in point > was an earlier post from an 8-CPU Irix user. > > I would suggest you focus on making the application good. It would be wise to > invest a portion of the hardware budget into purchasing a MySQL support contract > or consulting services. > > Regarding Windows 2000 - I am curious why MySQL is an option, but Linux is not. > They kind of go together, almost the same as MS-SQL and Windows, or Oracle and > Solaris. Is this a dedicated MySQL machine? If yes, I cannot think of one > technical reason to run Windows on it, and I've tried hard in the past. If you > were using Oracle or especially MS-SQL, it would make sense. But if you've > decided that MySQL is it for your database, I would really have a hard time > coming up with any reasonalbe justification for Windows even if Microsoft or > somebody else was going to pay me big money for it. > > > -- > Sasha Pachev > Create online surveys at http://www.surveyz.com/ > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
