At 10:28 AM 4/4/2002, you wrote:
>On Thursday 04 April 2002 09:48 am, you wrote:
> > I think you'll find that the RISC systems have fewer processors and run at
> > lower clockspeeds for the same total performance. 100k is a HUGE amount of
> > money to drop on a system. You could get 2 full racks of high performance
> > 1U systems, including everything, for less, but whatever!
>
>I forgot to ask... while I haven't looked, I've never seen anythign on
>clustering MySQL. I presume that it can be done since you said that, but has
>anyone here actually tried it? Is it better than one huge server?
>
>
>Our problem is we're dealing with some enourmous tables that our web servers
>are accessing. We currently have a PowerEdge 2450, 5disk RAID 5, Dual PIII
>850s, 2GB RAM and we are killing it - the load is too much.
>
>That's why our management decided to get a whopping big server - so it can
>handle the load.
>
>We're not done growing yet either...
>
> JW
JW et al,
Where is the bottleneck? How many concurrent users do you have?
How many rows are their queries returning? I always slap a "LIMIT 100" on
each query to prevent the user from retrieving too much data. If they don't
like it, there is a query form that allows them to refine their query. For
non-registered users I limit them to 10 rows.
How many webservers do you have and what are you running on them?
PHP, ASP, JSP? If you are using PHP you can compile the PHP with Zend
optimizer (I think that's what it is called). It will give you around a 50%
performance increase on the webserver. PC Mag reviewed it a few months ago.
Is your MySQL server disk bound? Does it have too much I/O for the
drives to handle? If so, adding more processors won't solve the problem. It
would probably only make the problem worse because it would put even more
demand on the drives. There are (very expensive >$30,000) ram disks that
may solve the I/O problem (it that is your problem). These are hardware RAM
disks complete with onboard battery backup. It looks and acts just like a
super fast hard disk. If you turn the server off (or it crashes) the data
is still retained in RAM. To the OS it looks like another hard disk. I
looked at them a couple of years ago and they were very expensive for the
amount of RAM you get. Perhaps the prices have come down. But it would
certainly speed up your data access.
Are people accessing your database as read-only? If so,
replicating the data to several servers will be relatively easy. I assume
if there are a lot of users writing to the tables, you've eliminated the
table locking problem by trying InnoDb.
And of course the first thing you should look at is optimizing the
SQL you're using to access the database. You could have inefficient code.
Contract someone at MySQL AB to look over the code to see how it can be
optimized. It could be money well spent.
And if you've just won the lottery or your client has some deep
pockets, there is also the IBM zSeries mainframes that run multiple Linux
machines. I believe it supports up to 512 processors and 64 gb of RAM. It
will run hundreds of Linux sessions independently or in a parallel
cluster. You only buy what you need ($500 per Linux image) and expand
later. http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/. You can also use it
to heat your building during the winter.<g>
Brent
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
