----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Brundle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: Re: 64-bit Linux MySQL and ramdisks
> > I am curious, is there really that big of a benefit to using a ramdisk > this way? > > It depends on your usage. We need to do a great deal of unindexable > %wildcard% text searches on every row (no, we cant use FULLTEXT as nonword > substrings are a requirement), a huge daily insert batch which we want to > complete asap, followed by very long OPTIMIZE TABLE which is also asap. We > also have plenty of RAM to host the table on ramdisk and not worry about > disk swapping. So yes, we expect to save a good deal of time though > eliminating hard disk latency on db operations. > > We have a daily batch process which needs to be finished in 10 wall clock > hours and takes about 90 parallel-process-hours to complete (and is expected > to grow significantly next month), so we are big on optimizing every link in > the chain. This portion is a single-process operation and may save us up to > 2 wall clock hours during the update plus query speedup. > > If your tables can be effectively indexed and your query times are > acceptable and you can save yourself some RAM by only tweaking MySQL, thats > preferable. Also if you are doing updates thoughout the day you wouldnt want > to use ramdisks as you need to back up the table after updates since RAM is > volitile. Neither is the case for us. > > This is new for us though and all theory based on some reccommendations we > received from other people who have told us MySQL performs very well on > ramdisks, and through benchmarks of memory throughput on Opteron chips. > Since our tables are only 2GB in size there is no risk in our trying it out. > I will post results. > > > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
