On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:49:06PM +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > On 2/23/07, Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >That depends greatly on what you're doing with it. Generally, as soon > >as you start throwing a multi-user workload at it, MySQL stops > >scaling. http://tweakers.net recently did a study on that. > I think I recall that wikipedia uses MySQL ... they get quite a few > hits, too, I believe.
And wikipedia has a massive distributed caching layer the spans the glob (IIRC there's 128 cache machines). I think a better example might be livejournal; the last time I ran the numbers it should have been very reasonable to handle the entire update load with a single database server and add slony slaves for read access as needed. Instead they have a very, very complex system of spreading user load across multiple clusters, etc. Because of that and mysql in general, they've suffered a lot of pain and some lost data. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
