On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 01:36 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 06:35:03PM -0400, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I'd be interested to know if you can get a test running that uses
either a key_buffer or an innodb
If memory serves, adjustments to the OS need to be made to take advantage of
the 64-bit memory addressing. I know some changes have been made to OS X to
run on a 64-bit chip, but I'm not certain they've made enough modifications
to take advantage of the memory addressing.
I'd be interested to see
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 06:35:03PM -0400, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested to know if you can get a test running that uses
> > either a key_buffer or an innodb_buffer_pool in the 3.5GB range.
>
> Interestingly e
Gabriel Ricard wrote:
>
>On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
>>I'd be interested to know if you can get a test running that uses
>>either a key_buffer or an innodb_buffer_pool in the 3.5GB range.
>
>Interestingly enough, I can't seem to get MySQL to use more than
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I'd be interested to know if you can get a test running that uses
either a key_buffer or an innodb_buffer_pool in the 3.5GB range.
Interestingly enough, I can't seem to get MySQL to use more than 2GB of
RAM.
I get errors like th
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:04:47AM -0400, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
I am currently testing this on a new dual 2GHz G5 with 4GB of RAM.
Seems pretty nice so far. I've loaded up a copy of our production
database (4GB of data for real es
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:04:47AM -0400, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
> I am currently testing this on a new dual 2GHz G5 with 4GB of RAM.
> Seems pretty nice so far. I've loaded up a copy of our production
> database (4GB of data for real estate web sites) and moderate property
> search queries of ou
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote:
> Wouldn't code need to be added for mySQL to take advantage of memory
> mapping in a 64 bit system? I was under the impression that mysql in its
> current form has specific code to emulate the behavior thus the problem
> of m
r and mySQL DBA for FriendFinder Inc.
- http://friendfinder.com/go/p40688
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:13 PM
-->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Anyone using MySQL 4.x on Apple's G5
Adam wrote:
Wow, new dual processor G5... drool
How are the bulk operations performing?
-Original Message-
From: Gabriel Ricard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anyone using MySQL 4.x on Apple's G5?
I am current
Wow, new dual processor G5... drool
How are the bulk operations performing?
-Original Message-
From: Gabriel Ricard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anyone using MySQL 4.x on Apple's G5?
I am currently testing
I am currently testing this on a new dual 2GHz G5 with 4GB of RAM.
Seems pretty nice so far. I've loaded up a copy of our production
database (4GB of data for real estate web sites) and moderate property
search queries of ours run much faster than on our dual G4 MDD
PowerMac. I guess we're real
If so, how is it working out? Are you taking advantage of the
64bit memory space?
Jeremy
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
MySQL 4.0.15-Yahoo-SMP: up 31 days, processed 1,151,820,403 queries (426/sec. avg)
--
13 matches
Mail list logo