).
Both ways will work fine since <100 queries/sec is not pushing any sort
of network envelopes or anything.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:22 AM
To: Adam Nelson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MySQL hardware concerns
On
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Adam Nelson wrote:
> Seems to me like a better architecture might be:
>
> N apache servers with mysql clients
> 1 Master Mysql Server
> 1 Slave Mysql Server/admin/backup server
>
> If you have 5 slave servers (one on each apache server), that would
> cause much more traffic o
ou may need to
think about a dl380 with quad processors (but that's probably overkill
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Hiatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MySQL hardware concerns
>Can you translate 100,000 users
>Can you translate 100,000 users into database numbers? How many SELECTs
>per second, UPDATEs per second, and so on? That'd help a lot.
I believe roughly 70% of our queries are SELECTs, 29% UPDATEs, and less than
a percent for both INSERTs and DELETEs.
MySQL on localhost (3.23.46) up 4+22:08
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:05:18AM +, Jeremy Hiatt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Were planning on buying more hardware soon and have been pondering the
> machine configuration mentioned in Rasmus Lerdorfs Programming PHP book
> (OReilly): a squid cache redirector sending traffic to multiple Apache
