Raid 5 is just as common as any other raid in software, and on my other
boxes it does not present any problem at all... I have seen excellent
tests with raid5 in software, and many contest that software raid 5 on
a high powered system is faster than hardware raid 5 using the same
disks-- I hav
I have had linux on soft-raid5 (6x18G, 8x9G, 4x18G) systems, and the
load was even higher... The explanation for this could be that at high
IO rates the data is not 100% synced across the spindles, and therefore
smaller files (ie files smaller than the chunk size on each physical
disk) must wai
I have managed to get what looks like >2G for the process, but, it does
not want to do a key_buffer of that size
I gave it a Key_buffer of 768M and a query cache of 1024M, and it seems
happier.. though, not noticeably faster.
[mysqld]
key_buffer = 768M
max_allowed_packet = 8M
table_cach
I don't think there would be any benefit to using InnoDB, at least not
from a transaction support view.
After your nightly optimize/repair are you also doing a flush? That may
help.
I haven't seen any direct comparisons between HFS+ and file systems
supported by Linux. I would believe that Lin
I have added these settings to my newer my.cnf, including replacing the
key_buffer=1600M with this 768M... It was a touch late today to see if
it has a big effect during the heavy load period (~3am to 4pm EST, site
has mostly european users)
I did not have any of these settings explicitly set i
The primary server (Dual Athlon) has several U160 scsi disks, 10K and
15K rpm... Approximately half the full size images are on one 73G U160,
the other half on another (about 120G of large images alone being
stored... I am trying to get him to abandon/archive old/unused images).
The system/lo
Have you tried reworking your queries a bit? I try to avoid using "IN"
as much as possible. What does EXPLAIN say about how the long queries
are executed? If I have to match something against a lot of values, I
select the values into a HEAP table and then do a join. Especially if
YOU are going
Yes, I saw this port before... I am not sure why I cannot allocate more
ram on this box- It is a clean 10.3 install, with 10.3.2 update. I got
this box as I love OSX, and have always loved apple, but, this is not
working out great. Much less powerful (and less expensive) units can do
a better
2GB was the per-process memory limit in Mac OS X 10.2 and earlier. 10.3
increased this to 4GB per-process. I've gotten MySQL running with 3GB
of RAM on the G5 previously.
This is an excerpt from a prior email to the list from back in October
when I was first testing MySQL on the G5:
> query_ca
Yes, MySQL is capable of using more than 2GB, but it still must obey
the limits of the underlying OS. This means file sizes, memory
allocation and whatever else. Have you heard of anybody allocating more
the 2GB using OSX? I've heard of quite a bit more using Linux or other
Unix flavors, but no
Others on this list have claimed to be able to set over 3G, and my
failure is with even less than 2G (though, I am unsure if there is a
combination of other memory settings working together to create an >2GB
situation combined)
Even at 1.6G, which seems to work (though, -not- why we got 4G of
You may be hitting an OSX limit. While you can install more than 2GB on
a system, I don't think any one process is allowed to allocated more
than 2GB of RAM to itself. It's not a 64-bit OS yet. You should be able
to search the Apple website for this limit.
On Jan 26, 2004, at 6:10 AM, Adam Gold
12 matches
Mail list logo