Re: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-26 Thread Jim McAtee
- Original Message - From: "Mysql List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Re: Huge Server configuration > I have RAID 5 with 5 hardisks, so usuable number of spindle will only be 4. Unless you've d

Re: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-26 Thread MySQL
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm From: "Dathan Vance Pattishall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:42:31 -0700 RAID-5 is cool, RAID-1+0 (10) is better for writes. Raid5 is slow and

RE: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Dathan Vance Pattishall
-->-Original Message- -->From: Mysql List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -->Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:47 AM -->To: Dathan Vance Pattishall -->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -->Subject: Re: Huge Server configuration --> -->Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote: --> --

Re: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Mysql List
Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote: RAID-5 is cool, RAID-1+0 (10) is better for writes. Your defiantly are going to be IO bound. I would go with many smaller disks >= 20 disk, in multiple RAID-1+0 configurations on different channels or better yet different RAID controllers. Well I do not have the l

RE: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Christopher Knight
BEGIN my.cnf [mysqld] port = 3306 socket= /tmp/mysql.sock basedir = /usr/local/mysql log = /var/log/mysql/mysql.log log-slow-queries = /var/log/mysql/mysql-slow.log log-err = /var/log/mysql/mysql.err log-bi

RE: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Dathan Vance Pattishall
IO bound with a read heavy 2 Gb where most of the data is in memory. I'm transferring 15Mb a second of read traffic. -->-Original Message- -->From: Mysql List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -->Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:16 AM -->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -->Subject: R

Re: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Mysql List
Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote: NICE No matter how big your disks are, the number of spindles and throughput is your win. I have RAID 5 with 5 hardisks, so usuable number of spindle will only be 4. my.cnf 3.5x options skip-locking skip-name-resolve set-variable = tmp_table_size=4096 log-bin=b

Re: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Mysql List
Christopher Knight wrote: what table types? Innodb.etc... It is mainly innodb. about how many tables? there are around 200 tables do you do alot of sorting? Lots of sorting and fltering is done are the exact same queries repeated alot? Not likely is the machine doing anything else or is ma

RE: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Christopher Knight
what table types? Innodb.etc... about how many tables? do you do alot of sorting? are the exact same queries repeated alot? is the machine doing anything else or is mainly a DB server? can I borrow the machine for awhile? what version of mysql are you running? chris -Original Message- Fr

RE: Huge Server configuration

2003-07-24 Thread Dathan Vance Pattishall
NICE No matter how big your disks are, the number of spindles and throughput is your win. my.cnf 3.5x options skip-locking skip-name-resolve set-variable = tmp_table_size=4096 log-bin=binlog/something make sure binlog is a symlink to a separate partition / drive set-variable = key_buffer=4G s