Sorry last e-mail didnt contain all text for whatever reason it should be like
this:
--
Hello MC,
any results yet by any chance ? What conclusion did you get out of your
test ?
There is another threat going on with the subject line "Re: best-performing
CPU + platform for MySQL now?
Hello MC,
any results yet by any chance ? What conclusion did you get out of your test ?
There is another threat going on with the subject line "Re: best-performing
CPU + platform for MySQL now? Opteron? OpenBSD? SuSE?"
Best regards
Nils Valentin
Tokyo/Japan
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 12:39,
Pete Harlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No. I've forgot to tell that the -Max binary is linked dynamically
>> because it uses SSL.
>
> Is there a reason the SSL libraries can't also be linked statically?
There was some reasons. Afair, MySQL is not the only software which could not
be staticall
"mc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are the results from my installation... in case you may find them
> useful :)
So it seems that 64bit binaries are also dynamically linked...:(
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensi
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 11:46:02AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 06:26:23PM +0300, Egor Egorov wrote:
> ...
> > No. I've forgot to tell that the -Max binary is linked dynamically
> > because it uses SSL.
>
> Is there a reason the SSL libraries can't also be linked statically?
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 06:26:23PM +0300, Egor Egorov wrote:
...
> No. I've forgot to tell that the -Max binary is linked dynamically
> because it uses SSL.
Is there a reason the SSL libraries can't also be linked statically?
Do you recommend against running the -Max binary, because it doesn't
us
[snip]
> No. I've forgot to tell that the -Max binary is linked dynamically because
> it uses
> SSL.
Here are the results from my installation... in case you may find them
useful :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# file
mysql-standard-4.0.20-unknown-linux-x86_64/bin/mysqld
mysql-standard-4.0.20-unknown-
"mc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just curious if I have got something wrong with my eyes or fingers:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mysql-max-4.0.20-unknown-linux-x86_64]# ldd bin/mysqld
>librt.so.1 => /lib64/tls/librt.so.1 (0x003c71f0)
>libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x003c
is from mysql amd64 tarball. Did I download the wrong tarball or do I
need to hack libc and link them by myself?
mc.
> -Original Message-
> From: Egor Egorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 22:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what os to use f
"bad corn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recently our company has purchased a dual amd64 opteron machine for mysql
> server purpose.
Whatever Linux you choose please better run MySQL officialy built binaries. Due
to some known glibc/gcc issues the officially built binary performs better that
cust
[snip]
> Debian is our first choice, but on the Debian/AMD64 howto, it is stated
that
> the port is still in beta stage. Does anyone have experiences with
> debian/amd64 + mysql? I would love to know if mysql will run on it before
> giving it a try..
[snip]
AFAIK, Debian is now voting on whether t
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 05:31, Daniel Kasak wrote:
> As you probably know, not all software is perfectly supported on x86-64
> under Linux at the moment. This includes glibc, gcc, binutils, etc.
> There are always patches coming in. If you run Gentoo, you have
> *incredibly* painless updates to ALL
bad corn wrote:
Hi all,
Recently our company has purchased a dual amd64 opteron machine for mysql
server purpose.
It seems that there are not many os choices for us.
Here is the list of OS that we are going to test (in listed order):
- debian (amd64)
- fedora2 (amd64)
- suse (amd64
13 matches
Mail list logo
