Re: Small InnoDB table with many concurrent queries
ah sorry... there are a few UPDATEs too but most is SELECTs... 60:40 i would say. Excuse me. But why concurrent queries request table locks? 2009/4/20 living liquid | Christian Meisinger c.meisin...@livingliquid.com Hi there. I've a small table with my daily banner hits. 1. version was with myisam but with a lot of concurrent queries (all SELECTs) i get too many table locks. so i changed it to an innodb table. works great most of the time. sometimes it seems to be too much, starting at about 500 concurrent queries i see a huge amount of processes taking about 3 minutes to finish 'sending data'. the SELECT queries use the correct index and data returned is small (2 integers). the table has only 4MB and about 35000 rows. it can't be the size of the table... mysql server is connected with a 1G switch. so i don't think it's network related. mysql server is a dual xeon 2,3GHz with 8G ram and SCSI disk RAID5. did i hit a innodb limit with this server configuration? or is my my.cnf bad? my.cnf --- key_buffer = 750M max_allowed_packet = 32M table_cache = 1 sort_buffer_size= 4M join_buffer_size= 4M read_buffer_size= 2M read_rnd_buffer_size= 4M myisam_sort_buffer_size = 128M query_cache_size= 750M query_cache_limit = 16M thread_cache= 32 thread_concurrency = 16 tmp_table_size = 700M max_heap_table_size = 700M net_buffer_length = 16K skip-external-locking innodb_additional_mem_pool_size = 16M innodb_buffer_pool_size = 2G innodb_thread_concurrency = 16 innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 2 innodb_log_buffer_size = 8M innodb_lock_wait_timeout= 120 innodb_log_file_size= 256M innodb_log_files_in_group = 3 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Sun bought by Oracle
Waiting for more interesting points. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Manish Gupta manish.in@gmail.comwrote: http://www.sun.com/third-party/global/oracle/ anyone saw this ?? On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:54 AM, John Meyer john.l.me...@gmail.com wrote: Yep. In particular the anti-trust division of the DOJ. Kaushal Shriyan wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:14 PM, John Meyer john.l.me...@gmail.com mailto:john.l.me...@gmail.com wrote: I'm wondering what the DOJ is going to think of that deal. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=kaushalshri...@gmail.com DOJ ? does it mean Department of Justice ? Kaushal -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=manish.in@gmail.com -- Manish Gupta Follow me on twitter: twitter.com/nimbus3000 -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
Re: Small InnoDB table with many concurrent queries
Once your tables' engine are all of innodb, your configuration file has to be changed to fit innodb's feature, not myisam. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM, living liquid | Christian Meisinger c.meisin...@livingliquid.com wrote: ah sorry... there are a few UPDATEs too but most is SELECTs... 60:40 i would say. Excuse me. But why concurrent queries request table locks? 2009/4/20 living liquid | Christian Meisinger c.meisin...@livingliquid.com Hi there. I've a small table with my daily banner hits. 1. version was with myisam but with a lot of concurrent queries (all SELECTs) i get too many table locks. so i changed it to an innodb table. works great most of the time. sometimes it seems to be too much, starting at about 500 concurrent queries i see a huge amount of processes taking about 3 minutes to finish 'sending data'. the SELECT queries use the correct index and data returned is small (2 integers). the table has only 4MB and about 35000 rows. it can't be the size of the table... mysql server is connected with a 1G switch. so i don't think it's network related. mysql server is a dual xeon 2,3GHz with 8G ram and SCSI disk RAID5. did i hit a innodb limit with this server configuration? or is my my.cnf bad? my.cnf --- key_buffer = 750M max_allowed_packet = 32M table_cache = 1 sort_buffer_size= 4M join_buffer_size= 4M read_buffer_size= 2M read_rnd_buffer_size= 4M myisam_sort_buffer_size = 128M query_cache_size= 750M query_cache_limit = 16M thread_cache= 32 thread_concurrency = 16 tmp_table_size = 700M max_heap_table_size = 700M net_buffer_length = 16K skip-external-locking innodb_additional_mem_pool_size = 16M innodb_buffer_pool_size = 2G innodb_thread_concurrency = 16 innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 2 innodb_log_buffer_size = 8M innodb_lock_wait_timeout= 120 innodb_log_file_size= 256M innodb_log_files_in_group = 3 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=yueliangdao0...@gmail.com -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
RE: A good US Hosting Site?
Okay, does anyone know of a hosting site that supports 'Image::Magick'? (the Perl package). The salesrep at AwardSpace said they didn't have it. P.S. This is probably getting a mite off-topic. So, feel free to reply to me off-list, if you happen to know the answer. Thanks, - Mark -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: UNIX_TIMESTAMP - Can anyone explain this behavior?
Hi Keith,
I'm not sure, but this might be DST that's in your way. Have you
looked into that?
Have a nice day,
- Martijn
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 18:34, Keith Hughitt keith.hugh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know what is going on here:
//Query:
select UNIX_TIMESTAMP(TIMESTAMP('2003-01-01 00:00:00')) as first,
UNIX_TIMESTAMP(TIMESTAMP('2003-10-05 00:00:00')) as second,
UNIX_TIMESTAMP(TIMESTAMP('2004-01-01 00:00:00')) as third;
++++
| first | second | third |
++++
| 1041400800 | 106533 | 1072936800 |
++++
// Converting timestamps to UTC using linux date command (could also use
http://www.4webhelp.net/us/timestamp.php)
$ date -u -d @1072936800
Thu Jan 1 06:00:00 UTC 2004
$ date -u -d @1041400800
Wed Jan 1 06:00:00 UTC 2003
$ date -u -d @1064984400
Wed Oct 1 05:00:00 UTC 2003
MySQL seems to treat the local time as being UTC -6 hours in the first two
cases but as UTC -5 in other cases. The system local time appears to be
UTC-5 (EST):
// Attempting to determine MySQL's timezone offset:
select UNIX_TIMESTAMP(UTC_TIMESTAMP()) - UNIX_TIMESTAMP(now()) as offset:
++
| offset |
++
| 18000 |
++
which is consistent with the last result, but not the first two.
I have not yet tested more dates throughout the year to see when the change
occurs, and if there is a pattern, but I though I'd ask first to see if
anyone else has either
encountered this before, or knows what is going on?
I would like to be able to store some UTC datetimes in a system that uses
localtime, and then extract them as UTC timestamps again, which is why I'm
trying to figure
out the proper offset. On this particular system I also do not have the
ability to change the default timezone (e.g. to UTC/GMT), so I'm stuck with
using local dates.
Any suggestions? Any help would be greatly appreciated :)
Thanks!
-Keith
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Oracle , what else ?
hello people, bad joke is not it ? After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? _-¯-_-¯-_-¯-_-¯-_ Gilles Missonnier IAP - g...@iap.fr 01 44 32 81 36 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
On 21 Apr 2009, at 14:06, Gilles MISSONNIER wrote: hello people, bad joke is not it ? After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? I don't see what the problem is really. Anyway if there ever is a problem in the future (which I doubt) there is always PostgreSQL to fall back on. Simon. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Hey Gilles, After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? Not sure what we are gonna run, but my office is continuing to run MySQL when required, Firebird otherwise :-) With regards, Martijn Tonies Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird! Database questions? Check the forum: http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Sun bought by Oracle
Arthur Fuller wrote: I think that you'e being paranoid. IMO, Oracle will continue to support and develop mySQL. Further, I think that these concerns about the future of mySQL overlook the points behind the purchase: 1. To obtain the Sun hardware and thus provide a complete hardware and software solution. 2. To further optimize Oracle to take full advantage of the Solaris OS. 3. To continue to support Linux. 4. To get Java and thus penetrate the mobile device marketplace. 5. And finally, to grow Oracle revenues by $1B+ a year and growing. Given the purchase price, the acquisition will pay for itself within 5 years. Compared to all these reasons, the mySQL part of the acquisition is small potatoes. Arthur On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Curtis Maurand cur...@maurand.com wrote: I figure that they'll either kill mysql or they'll limit the commnunity version in ways that will make you purchase a commercial version if you want to continue to use it. I figure there will be heavy migrations to open source alternatives. --C Andy Shellam wrote: I've just been made aware by a client that Oracle have purchased Sun Microsystems. The article below on Sun's website mentions that Oracle are committed to Linux and other open platforms and mentions the fact that Java touches practically every business system around. http://www.sun.com/third-party/global/oracle/index.jsp I wonder what Oracle's plans are when it comes to MySQL? There is no mention of MySQL in the above article. Will it eventually come under the Oracle umbrella, much like BerkeleyDB did? -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=fuller.art...@gmail.com I know this is the MySQL list but there is another Sun product that this effects and that is VirtualBox. I've used MySQL for years and hope Oracle does not stop it, but you never know with Ellison encharge! Just my 2 cents. -- -- OpenSUSE 11.1 KDE 4.1.3, Intel DX48BT2 Core 2 Dual E7200. 4 GB DDR III GeForce 8400 GS, 320GB Disc (2) --- Russ -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
mysql problem
Hello people,
I do not know if this the right listI am migrating a very basic application
from an older mysql version 4.1.9-standard to a new mysql version 5.0.45
{RedHat default package}. I have migrated DB data from one to the other and all
data seems to be there including the structureMy problem is that I run a
query like this :
SELECT x.application_name, y.role_name FROM application x, role y JOIN
logical_app_role_link l ON x.application_id = l.application_id AND y.role_id =
l.role_id WHERE l.logical_id = 15;
It works for the old mysql version but for the new mysql version I receive the
following error :
ERROR 1054 (42S22): Unknown column 'x.application_id' in 'on clause'
and I am sure that application_id exists in table application.
Thanks
konrad
Les informations contenues dans ce message et/ou ses annexes sont
reservees a l'attention et a l'utilisation de leur destinataire et peuvent etre
confidentielles. Si vous n'etes pas destinataire de ce message, vous etes
informes que vous l'avez recu par erreur et que toute utilisation en est
interdite. Dans ce cas, vous etes pries de le detruire et d'en informer la
Banque Europeenne d'Investissement.
The information in this message and/or attachments is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee and may be confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this transmittal in error and that any use of it is prohibited. In
such a case please delete this message and kindly notify the European
Investment Bank accordingly.
Re: mysql problem
AZZOPARDI Konrad wrote:
Hello people,
I do not know if this the right listI am migrating a very basic application from an older mysql version 4.1.9-standard to a new mysql version 5.0.45 {RedHat default package}. I have migrated DB data from one to the other and all data seems to be there including the structureMy problem is that I run a query like this :
SELECT x.application_name, y.role_name FROM application x, role y JOIN logical_app_role_link l ON x.application_id = l.application_id AND y.role_id = l.role_id WHERE l.logical_id = 15;
It works for the old mysql version but for the new mysql version I receive the
following error :
ERROR 1054 (42S22): Unknown column 'x.application_id' in 'on clause'
and I am sure that application_id exists in table application.
Thanks
konrad
Don't mix implicit and explicit joins.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
At 08:06 AM 4/21/2009, Gilles MISSONNIER wrote: hello people, bad joke is not it ? After MySQL bought by the java maker, and now Sun bought by Oracle, what are we gonna run as RDBMS ? It seems like the little fish are getting eaten by the bigger fish. I understand Microsoft is now going to buy Oracle. :-) (Sorry, just kidding) re:MySQL. This is a smart move by Oracle because now they will have the dominant database on the web. They can't sell Oracle to most web developers so they need to keep MySQL alive. Whether they keep updating it is another question. I am a little worried about MySQL enterprise because they will likely hike the fees for that. They could try and pressure the major MySQL web sites like Wikipedia to switch to Oracle. I don't think this will work since most websites are free and not cash driven so they don't have the money or skill set to switch to Oracle. If they try and kill MySQL enterprise, Oracle will get one very angry community after it and they can't afford that. The real question is whether they will let MySQL wither and die by not providing updates for it? To see what will happen to MySQL take a look at how Oracle handled InnoDb. How many updates have they released since they purchased it? I really don't know so someone will need to check. Is Oracle is too big to make MySQL updates any kind of priority? It seems that the larger the company and the more products they have, the less interest they have in their lower revenue making products. I hope this is not the case with Oracle, but the updates in the next year will determine where MySQL is headed. Just one guy's opinion. Mike -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: mysql problem
Konrad,
AZZOPARDI Konrad schrieb:
Hello people,
I do not know if this the right listI am migrating a very basic application from an older mysql version 4.1.9-standard to a new mysql version 5.0.45 {RedHat default package}. I have migrated DB data from one to the other and all data seems to be there including the structureMy problem is that I run a query like this :
SELECT x.application_name, y.role_name FROM application x, role y JOIN logical_app_role_link l ON x.application_id = l.application_id AND y.role_id = l.role_id WHERE l.logical_id = 15;
It works for the old mysql version but for the new mysql version I receive the
following error :
ERROR 1054 (42S22): Unknown column 'x.application_id' in 'on clause'
and I am sure that application_id exists in table application.
read the upgrading instructions and pay special attention
to http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html,
Join Processing Changes in MySQL 5.0.12.
Best to avoid this issue is to not mix implicit and
explicit joins, as Gerald pointed out.
Ciao,
Thomas
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Sun bought by Oracle
I too am a big entusiast of Sun's VirtualBox, and I hope that nothing goes sideways on this product. A. effects and that is VirtualBox. I've used MySQL for years and hope Oracle does not stop it, but you never know with Ellison encharge! Just my 2 cents. -- -- OpenSUSE 11.1 KDE 4.1.3, Intel DX48BT2 Core 2 Dual E7200. 4 GB DDR III GeForce 8400 GS, 320GB Disc (2) --- Russ -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=fuller.art...@gmail.com I know this is the MySQL list but there is another Sun product that this
RE: Sun bought by Oracle
I hope I start getting paid what Oracle DBA's make. -Original Message- From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:fuller.art...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 12:04 PM To: russbucket Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: Sun bought by Oracle I too am a big entusiast of Sun's VirtualBox, and I hope that nothing goes sideways on this product. A. effects and that is VirtualBox. I've used MySQL for years and hope Oracle does not stop it, but you never know with Ellison encharge! Just my 2 cents. -- -- OpenSUSE 11.1 KDE 4.1.3, Intel DX48BT2 Core 2 Dual E7200. 4 GB DDR III GeForce 8400 GS, 320GB Disc (2) --- Russ -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=fuller.art...@gmail.com I know this is the MySQL list but there is another Sun product that this -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Two COUNTs in one query
I think I probably can't do what I want, but am hoping I'm wrong. Please help :) I have three tables: Organisations - organisation_id - name - - 1 - Org A - - 2 - Org B - Notes__Organisations - - organisation_id - note_id - - - 1 - 10 - - 1 - 11 - - Organisations__People --- - organisation_id - person_id - --- - 1 - 20- - 1 - 21- - 1 - 22- - 1 - 23- - 2 - 24- --- Organisations has one-to-many relationships with Notes__Organisations and Organisations__People. I want to select the name and id from Organisations along with a count of the number of one-to-many relationships it has in each of the two tables. I want a count of 0 if there are none, so I'm using two LEFT JOINs and a GROUP BY. I want to do this in a single query (so I can limit the set and sort it, displaying the limited set in my interface). I have: = SELECT `Organisations`.`organisation_id`, `Organisations`.`name`, COUNT(`Notes__Organisations`.`organisation_id`) AS 'linked_notes_count', COUNT(`Organisations__People`.`organisation_id`) AS 'linked_people_count' FROM `Organisations` LEFT JOIN `Notes__Organisations` ON `Organisations`.`organisation_id` = `Notes__Organisations`.`organisation_id` LEFT JOIN `Organisations__People` ON `Organisations`.`organisation_id` = `Organisations__People`.`organisation_id` GROUP BY `Organisations`.`organisation_id` ORDER BY name LIMIT 50, 25 = Obviously the LIMIT does not apply to this example data, but I wanted to show my whole query. So with the above data I want: --- - organisation_id - name - linked_notes_count - linked_people_count - --- - 1 - Org A - 2 - 4 - - 2 - Org B - 0 - 1 - --- What I actually get is unpredictable. Something like: --- - organisation_id - name - linked_notes_count - linked_people_count - --- - 1 - Org A - 4 - 4 - - 2 - Org B - 0 - 1 - --- But it varies and there's no pattern. Is there a way? Should I use a stored procedure instead to do the counts? (not used them yet - don't even know if that's a valid suggestion). Thanks in advance, Nigel -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Seeking MySQL Server Internals Developers
We are in early stage of a start-up seeking MySQL server internals developers. The developers will be involved in an effort to accelerate execution of a MySQL query with a multi-core CPU running concurrent slave threads. The effort will be made as modifications to a current release version of server kernel and will be compatible with existing configuration and databases as a drop-in replacement. Hiromichi Watari -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Two COUNTs in one query
Nigel, I want to select the name and id from Organisations along with a count of the number of one-to-many relationships it has in each of the two tables. Aggregation multiplies across multiple joins. For suggested solutions see Aggregates across multiple joins at http://www.artfulsoftware.com/infotree/queries.php. PB - Nigel Peck wrote: I think I probably can't do what I want, but am hoping I'm wrong. Please help :) I have three tables: Organisations - organisation_id - name - - 1 - Org A - - 2 - Org B - Notes__Organisations - - organisation_id - note_id - - - 1 - 10 - - 1 - 11 - - Organisations__People --- - organisation_id - person_id - --- - 1 - 20- - 1 - 21- - 1 - 22- - 1 - 23- - 2 - 24- --- Organisations has one-to-many relationships with Notes__Organisations and Organisations__People. I want to select the name and id from Organisations along with a count of the number of one-to-many relationships it has in each of the two tables. I want a count of 0 if there are none, so I'm using two LEFT JOINs and a GROUP BY. I want to do this in a single query (so I can limit the set and sort it, displaying the limited set in my interface). I have: = SELECT `Organisations`.`organisation_id`, `Organisations`.`name`, COUNT(`Notes__Organisations`.`organisation_id`) AS 'linked_notes_count', COUNT(`Organisations__People`.`organisation_id`) AS 'linked_people_count' FROM `Organisations` LEFT JOIN `Notes__Organisations` ON `Organisations`.`organisation_id` = `Notes__Organisations`.`organisation_id` LEFT JOIN `Organisations__People` ON `Organisations`.`organisation_id` = `Organisations__People`.`organisation_id` GROUP BY `Organisations`.`organisation_id` ORDER BY name LIMIT 50, 25 = Obviously the LIMIT does not apply to this example data, but I wanted to show my whole query. So with the above data I want: --- - organisation_id - name - linked_notes_count - linked_people_count - --- - 1 - Org A - 2 - 4 - - 2 - Org B - 0 - 1 - --- What I actually get is unpredictable. Something like: --- - organisation_id - name - linked_notes_count - linked_people_count - --- - 1 - Org A - 4 - 4 - - 2 - Org B - 0 - 1 - --- But it varies and there's no pattern. Is there a way? Should I use a stored procedure instead to do the counts? (not used them yet - don't even know if that's a valid suggestion). Thanks in advance, Nigel No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09 08:30:00
Re: Oracle , what else ?
Hi, To see what will happen to MySQL take a look at how Oracle handled InnoDb. How many updates have they released since they purchased it? I really don't know so someone will need to check. Is Oracle is too big to make MySQL updates any kind of priority? It seems that the larger the company and the more products they have, the less interest they have in their lower revenue making products. I hope this is not the case with Oracle, but the updates in the next year will determine where MySQL is headed. On a similar note, Oracle bought Sleepycat in February 2006 and hence acquired the embedded BerkeleyDB database in the process. In the 3 years since then I believe there has been two updates released to BerkeleyDB. Previous to the acquisition I was updating BerkeleyDB on my servers roughly once every few months. Personally (and I hope I'm wrong) I don't believe there's room in Oracle's portfolio for two diverse RDBMSs, and I envisage them re-branding MySQL as an Oracle open-source derivative which begins as being the MySQL codebase but is slowly migrated toward Oracle's engineering, to ease the transition for growing companies moving from MySQL/Oracle open-source to the Oracle enterprise versions. Having said that this is pure speculation, and only yesterday I read something in the manual that a particular option was going to be deprecated in MySQL 7 - we haven't even seen 6 in beta yet! Like Mike said, the next year or so will tell. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Optimizing iowait with tmpdir and tmpfs or ramfs?
Hello, I have a rather burly Drupal based site that seems to be causing some problems, today we had a major outage. There are many slow queries and also mysql related iowait that causes server processes to hang, at least that is the theory. Here you can examine some of the stats on the server: http://andric.us/load/localdomain/localhost.localdomain.html You can see my iowait stats here, which are pretty high: http://andric.us/load/localdomain/localhost.localdomain-cpu.html And I have written to quite some lengh about the symptoms here, if you are curious. http://forum.slicehost.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=3373page=1 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=543614 But the final conclusion is to use memory rather than disk for mysql's tmpdir setting. So my question is, how does one do this in debian/unix? Are there any recipes you can share? Should I use tmpfs vs ramfs? Thanks for your help. -- Milan ps. I hope it's not too much information but I also thought I would post my conf file here. I tweaked these according to the tuning script available here: https://launchpad.net/mysql-tuning-primer [client] port= 3306 socket = /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock [mysqld_safe] socket = /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock nice= 0 [mysqld] user= mysql pid-file= /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid socket = /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock port= 3306 basedir = /usr datadir = /var/lib/mysql tmpdir = /tmp language= /usr/share/mysql/english skip-external-locking bind-address= 127.0.0.1 max_allowed_packet = 16M max_connections= 500 table_cache= 500 key_buffer = 256M thread_stack= 64K thread_cache_size = 4 sort_buffer=64K net_buffer_length=2K query_cache_limit = 1M query_cache_size= 16M log_slow_queries= /var/log/mysql/mysql-slow.log long_query_time = 2 log_bin = /var/log/mysql/mysql-bin.log expire_logs_days= 10 max_binlog_size = 100M skip-bdb max_heap_table_size = 128M tmp_table_size = 256M [mysqldump] quick quote-names max_allowed_packet = 16M [mysql] [isamchk] key_buffer = 16M !includedir /etc/mysql/conf.d/ -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and foremost MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL and take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't like them the community would just keep developing 'pre-oracle' MySQL, even if that happens to be under a different name. Personally I would be surprised if the Oracle deal goes unchallenged. I don't think Oracle really 'want' MySQL as it makes very little money and it raises competition concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle were to look at offloading MySQL to ease competition fears, perhaps to someone like Google who are already heavily involved in the development of MySQL. On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 22:36 +0100, Andy Shellam wrote: Personally (and I hope I'm wrong) I don't believe there's room in Oracle's portfolio for two diverse RDBMSs, and I envisage them re-branding MySQL as an Oracle open-source derivative which begins as being the MySQL codebase but is slowly migrated toward Oracle's engineering, to ease the transition for growing companies moving from MySQL/Oracle open-source to the Oracle enterprise versions. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Oracle , what else ?
I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that this shall not occur. a) Who is going to challenge the deal? b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of the MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and everything lost, in such a move. d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts and perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware platform + existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a tiny teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry are much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions extending from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in this ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of their efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple in the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from which to upgrade to Oracle. Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and has various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take just one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. Granted, this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is prepared to take you there. Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as competitive products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in the open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think that Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to bet that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree but I challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make sense. MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible interest would Oracle jeapordize these investments? As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the waters then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It is clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles that let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I think that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small part of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. This is the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the salesperson of said stack. We have the hardware and the operating system and the middleware and the front-end. Click and go. IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be delivered as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is formidable, then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain other competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but it is to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such as MS to jump through several flaming hoops. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Daisley john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk wrote: MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and foremost MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL and take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't like them the community would just keep developing 'pre-oracle' MySQL, even if that happens to be under a different name. Personally I would be surprised if the Oracle deal goes unchallenged. I don't think Oracle really 'want' MySQL as it makes very little money and it raises competition concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle were to look at offloading
Re: Oracle , what else ?
It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the price that Sun paid. They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own destiny. :-) On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arthur Fuller fuller.art...@gmail.comwrote: I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that this shall not occur. a) Who is going to challenge the deal? b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of the MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and everything lost, in such a move. d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts and perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware platform + existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a tiny teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry are much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions extending from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in this ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of their efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple in the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from which to upgrade to Oracle. Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and has various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take just one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. Granted, this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is prepared to take you there. Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as competitive products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in the open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think that Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to bet that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree but I challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make sense. MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible interest would Oracle jeapordize these investments? As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the waters then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It is clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles that let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I think that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small part of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. This is the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the salesperson of said stack. We have the hardware and the operating system and the middleware and the front-end. Click and go. IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be delivered as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is formidable, then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain other competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but it is to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such as MS to jump through several flaming hoops. On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Daisley john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk wrote: MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and foremost MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL and take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't like them the community
