Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB to 1GB.
Transactions and row locking are required. Most queries are updates,
followed by writes,
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB to 1GB.
Transactions and row locking are required. Most queries are updates,
followed by writes,
Thanks for your comments Mike.
1. The largest table has 48 columns, the second largest 20 columns, and the
remainder less than 10 columns.
2. Each application instance (~30 tables) is between 50MB and 1GB.
3. Application instances are separate for many reasons including
infrastructure/scaling
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
I have now thought of having 1 table type per database (i.e. ~30
databases).
This would be easier and cheaper to manage than hundreds of databases, and
would also allow databases to be finely tuned to
I think it would be good to think about scaling a bit more. What if
your requirements change from 500 application instances to 5000
instances? It is good to go with a solution now that can easily scale
over to multiple servers. Also, it would probably be good if you could
move databases over to
Walter, this is exactly why we went for separate application instances
initially - it is the most flexible solution for scaling.
However, we have since discovered that it's actually a lot more work to
manage than we anticipated!
We would love to continue using separate application instances
Johan, we considered this approach but concluded it would require too much
re-development (more than just the database layer).
Thanks anyway.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.bewrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Michael Addyman
Hooray! http://code.google.com/p/mysql-master-master/
Am I crazy to be considering replicating 500+ databases? I think so...
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
Walter, this is exactly why we went for separate application instances
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hooray! http://code.google.com/p/mysql-master-master/
Am I crazy to be considering replicating 500+ databases? I think so...
I don't think the number of databases is an issue - the main point is the
We'll continue to use many replication clusters of course. And yes, we use
bonded gigabit ethernet.
I stumbled across Dolphin Express today - if only there were a cheap
alternative!
Thanks for the reassurance!
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.bewrote:
On
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear Geniuses,
I have an application requiring ~30 InnoDB tables, which needs to scale up
to at least 500 application instances (500 instances * ~30 tables = 15,000
tables).
Discussions in the
I'll take that on board.
Thanks for your advice, mysql-master-master, Maatkit, mysqlperformanceblog,
your patches and community support!
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Baron Schwartz ba...@xaprb.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Michael Addyman
At 04:30 AM 2/10/2009, you wrote:
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB to 1GB.
Transactions and row locking are required. Most queries
I vote for 1 table per TableType
this will keep your DB schema consistent with Architecture
Martin
__
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official business
of Sender. This transmission is
Martin, I'm guessing you mean 1 database per table type.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Martin Gainty mgai...@hotmail.com wrote:
I vote for 1 table per TableType
this will keep your DB schema consistent with Architecture
Martin
__
Disclaimer
Dear Geniuses,
I have an application requiring ~30 InnoDB tables, which needs to scale up
to at least 500 application instances (500 instances * ~30 tables = 15,000
tables).
Discussions in the archives suggest I would be better off having independent
databases for each of the application
At 05:03 PM 2/9/2009, Michael Addyman wrote:
Dear Geniuses,
I have an application requiring ~30 InnoDB tables, which needs to scale up
to at least 500 application instances (500 instances * ~30 tables = 15,000
tables).
Some of the questions people are going to ask are:
How large are each of
17 matches
Mail list logo
