).
Both ways will work fine since <100 queries/sec is not pushing any sort
of network envelopes or anything.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:22 AM
To: Adam Nelson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MySQL hardware concerns
On
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Adam Nelson wrote:
> Seems to me like a better architecture might be:
>
> N apache servers with mysql clients
> 1 Master Mysql Server
> 1 Slave Mysql Server/admin/backup server
>
> If you have 5 slave servers (one on each apache server), that would
> cause much more traffic o
ou may need to
think about a dl380 with quad processors (but that's probably overkill
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Hiatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MySQL hardware concerns
>Can you translate 100,000 users
>Can you translate 100,000 users into database numbers? How many SELECTs
>per second, UPDATEs per second, and so on? That'd help a lot.
I believe roughly 70% of our queries are SELECTs, 29% UPDATEs, and less than
a percent for both INSERTs and DELETEs.
MySQL on localhost (3.23.46) up 4+22:08
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:05:18AM +, Jeremy Hiatt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Were planning on buying more hardware soon and have been pondering the
> machine configuration mentioned in Rasmus Lerdorfs Programming PHP book
> (OReilly): a squid cache redirector sending traffic to multiple Apache
Hi,
Were planning on buying more hardware soon and have been pondering the
machine configuration mentioned in Rasmus Lerdorfs Programming PHP book
(OReilly): a squid cache redirector sending traffic to multiple Apache
servers each running a MySQL slave which is replicated from a master My
