Jay,
that is interesting:
Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Virtualization includes overhead.
It is fine as long as your application can tolerate that, but if your
performance demands grow there will be a point where a DB server in a
virtual machine will cause trouble but the same HW as a real
Ok...based on the responses that I received so far...it seems like maybe
I should be leaning toward a non virtualized solution.
What I am wondering now is...
1)would it be better to have one MySQL instance running and have the
developers each have their own DB inside that one instance?
Check out Giuseppe Maxia's MySQL Sandbox program. It is a very easy way
to run however many MySQL servers you want with separate config files
and such .. heck..even separate versions if you want (one 5.0, one 5.1,
one 6.0). It is available here: https://launchpad.net/mysql-sandbox
Will take
Hi Shain, all!
Shain Miley wrote:
Ok...based on the responses that I received so far...it seems like maybe
I should be leaning toward a non virtualized solution.
Virtualization includes overhead.
It is fine as long as your application can tolerate that, but if your
performance demands grow
[snip]
Virtualization includes overhead.
It is fine as long as your application can tolerate that, but if your
performance demands grow there will be a point where a DB server in a
virtual machine will cause trouble but the same HW as a real machine
would still suffice.
[/snip]
We run MySQL in
quote
we are going to be
setting up a 3 to 4 node MySQL replication cluster (1 master-rw and 2
slaves-ro)...each having 16 to 32 GB of RAM.
quote
If it is still true what you wrote you need different installations.
Of course master and slave on the same host has the only use of an
online
I had done many instances on one machine before, the most important thing
is about the my.cnf.
And there are many individual my.cnf, which belonged to their own instance.
Since your total memory is 32GB, you can assign them properly.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Claudio Nanni [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shain Miley) writes:
I am looking into the idea of setting up 10 - 15 virtualized instances
of MySQL. The reason for this is as follows...we are going to be
setting up a 3 to 4 node MySQL replication cluster (1 master-rw and 2
slaves-ro)...each having 16 to 32 GB of RAM.
-
From: Kyle Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mustafa Hashmi [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Virtualizing MySQL
On Thursday 30 August 2001 14:09, Mustafa Hashmi wrote:
Thanks for the response Joshua,
That is an option - however not one I
Two problems.
The clients don't have access to the databases, the server does.
Chrooted clients will not be able to read and write the named pipe
unless it is in their new root structure.
Mustafa Hashmi wrote:
Hi all,
I am in the process of creating a Virtual Server - and pretty much all
?
I appreciate your help.
Regards,
Mustafa.
- Original Message -
From: Gerald Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mustafa Hashmi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Virtualizing MySQL
Two problems.
The clients don't have access
.
- Original Message -
From: Gerald Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mustafa Hashmi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Virtualizing MySQL
Two problems.
The clients don't have access to the databases, the server does.
Chrooted clients
Hashmi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Virtualizing MySQL
The short answer is that you can't, if you're using a named pipe
(/tmp/mysql.sock, or some such). That would require every user having
their
own installation of MySQL, which may
13 matches
Mail list logo
