Hi,
> Quick question about the SHOW TABLE STATUS command and the
> Data_free info in
> particular.
>
> You say: "If it is high, then it's time to run OPTIMIZE TABLE..."
>
> What is considered high? As I'm looking at my output, I see that
> most of my
> tables show a value of 0, however, some have
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:20:00AM -0700, Mike Wexler wrote:
>
> I already increased table_cache from 128 to 2048. Which helped. And
> last night I increase key_buffer from 16MB to 64MB. Maybe it should
> be even larger?
Oh, you can easily make it quite a bit higher. On my 1GB systems, I
have i
Quick question about the SHOW TABLE STATUS command and the Data_free info in
particular.
You say: "If it is high, then it's time to run OPTIMIZE TABLE..."
What is considered high? As I'm looking at my output, I see that most of my
tables show a value of 0, however, some have a value around 300 a
Hi,
> Strange. My understanding was that RAID 5 was good for read bandwidth
> but that keeping the parity disk uptodate slowed it down for write
> bandwidth.
Well, what you say is almost true to a certain extent. Firstly, with RAID 5
parity is striped across the disks too, so there is no bottlen
Hi,
> Thank you very much for the detailed analysis! One question:
> where did he get all this data from?
You can show all of MySQL's status and configuration parameters by issuing
these statements:
SHOW STATUS;
SHOW VARIABLES;
Also, the following can come in handy if you want to see info abo
>
>
> Yes, you should definitely look at option #9 first. Here's a few pointers to
> some things that immediately spring off the screen at me:
>
> | Open_tables | 1296 |
> | Open_files | 2180712|
> | Open_streams | 0 |
> | Opened_tables
Basil Hussain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > We currently have a dedicate server for MySQL. The server is a dual
> > > pentium III (1Ghz) with 2GB of RAM in it. It also has 2 18GB 10,000
> > > RPM drives in it arranged in a Raid 1 configuration (mirror).
> > > Sometime in the next 3-6 months we will b
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 04:21:05PM -0700, Mike Wexler wrote:
> >
> > We currently have a dedicate server for MySQL. The server is a dual
> > pentium III (1Ghz) with 2GB of RAM in it. It also has 2 18GB 10,000
> > RPM drives in it arranged in a Raid 1 configuration (mir
Hi,
> > We currently have a dedicate server for MySQL. The server is a dual
> > pentium III (1Ghz) with 2GB of RAM in it. It also has 2 18GB 10,000
> > RPM drives in it arranged in a Raid 1 configuration (mirror).
> > Sometime in the next 3-6 months we will be maxing out its
> > capacity. (We wer
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 04:21:05PM -0700, Mike Wexler wrote:
>
> We currently have a dedicate server for MySQL. The server is a dual
> pentium III (1Ghz) with 2GB of RAM in it. It also has 2 18GB 10,000
> RPM drives in it arranged in a Raid 1 configuration (mirror).
> Sometime in the next 3-6 mont
Steve Brazill wrote:
>
> More RAM never hurts (as long as you're using it, which you might be able to
> influence by your other option of optimizing the server variables).
Ok. I'm at 2 GB now. My next server will probably start at 4GB and I
want to have expansion room. What servers are current
More RAM never hurts (as long as you're using it, which you might be able to
influence by your other option of optimizing the server variables).
I've always had the opinion, that the faster you service the queries, the
more queries you can handle with existing resources. This might be best
han
12 matches
Mail list logo
