On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:07:09PM +0200, Michael Widenius wrote:
>
> The problem is not just the open; The problem is that we currently have to map
> all read/writes to a handler that checks if the table is raid or not.
Fair enough.
> What we need in the future is to add a wrapper around file
Hi!
> "Tim" == Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:13:43PM -0800, Jeremy D. Zawodny wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:08:46PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:57:16PM +0800, Sam Wong wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > So why isn't the --with
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 06:51:01AM -0500, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> Well, there are a few reasons.. We have a system with 4 8G drives.. If we
> use one for root and one to mirror that root, we have 2 drives left.
> Now, if we raid those 2 remaining drives (RAID5) we get about 12 Gigs of space
> av
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:13:43PM -0800, Jeremy D. Zawodny wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:08:46PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:57:16PM +0800, Sam Wong wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So why isn't the --with-raid option set in the binary download version?
> > >
> > > The file
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:08:46PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:57:16PM +0800, Sam Wong wrote:
> > > So why isn't the --with-raid option set in the binary download version?
> >
> > The file will be bigger and slower in result
>
> I doubt it would be significantly bigger. I
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:57:16PM +0800, Sam Wong wrote:
> > So why isn't the --with-raid option set in the binary download version?
>
> The file will be bigger and slower in result
I doubt it would be significantly bigger. I believe --with-raid support is
a very small and simple layer between m
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Sam Wong wrote:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:32:05 +0800
> From: Sam Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MySQL Tables over Multiple Drives
>
> Yes, you've to recreate the tables with RAID option (read the manual for
&
> So why isn't the --with-raid option set in the binary download version?
The file will be bigger and slower in result
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:44:43PM +0100, Tonu Samuel wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jason Frisvold wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply.. Is that a stable way of doing things? Is
> > there a performance hit when using the --with-raid option?
>
> Very small if at all. RAID does some additional
by." -- Douglas Adams
-Original Message-
From: Sam Wong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MySQL Tables over Multiple Drives
Yes, you've to recreate the tables with RAID option (read the manual for
details)
and mov
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.. Is that a stable way of doing things? Is
> there a performance hit when using the --with-raid option?
Very small if at all. RAID does some additional syscalls sometime but they
should be enough rare to not sense this.
blize already, I think.
BTW, why you want it to span over multiple drive?
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Frisvold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Sam Wong'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 7:15 PM
Subject: RE:
t: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MySQL Tables over Multiple Drives
Compile mysql with --with-raid option, then use symbolic link to link it to
other drive
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Frisvold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTE
Compile mysql with --with-raid option, then use symbolic link to link it to
other drive
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Frisvold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:33 PM
Subject: MySQL Tables over Multiple Drives
> I looked through the manua
14 matches
Mail list logo
