Yes... OS X 10.4 with a 32 but MySQL binary is stable... it is the
combination of 64 bit OS (Tiger), and the 64 bit MySQL binary, and
accessing more than 2Gbytes of memory within the mysqld process that
blows up the machine. You can also run the 64 bit binary but keep the
memory allocation
Hello, currently I run mysql 3.x on Mac OS X 10.3.
I have about as much ram in the machine as I can, and have tunes it the best
I can, however, I still see the performance drop pretty badly at times.
After reading this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 I suspect OS X is just
not
As you've probably read in the article, the hardware isn't too bad,
it's OS X that is slowing things down.
I would first go the free route. Download YellowDog Linux and install
that on your current Mac hardware. That will give you a big boost
when the load starts to climb. I've installed
Brent Baisley wrote:
If you do go the new hardware route, I wouldn't go with SCSI is you
only have $2K to spend. S-ATA2 based drives would give you similar
performance to SCSI, but at a big cost savings. SCSI's big
performance advantage was in command queueing which SATA2 drives now
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 08:30 -0600, Cory Robin wrote:
Brent Baisley wrote:
If you do go the new hardware route, I wouldn't go with SCSI is you
only have $2K to spend. S-ATA2 based drives would give you similar
performance to SCSI, but at a big cost savings. SCSI's big
performance
On 9/7/05, Brent Baisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you've probably read in the article, the hardware isn't too bad,
it's OS X that is slowing things down.
Interesting article. Helped me make my decision between OS X, and
Debian on our xServes. It appears bypassing the gui, and running a
On Sep 6, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
After reading this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 I suspect OS X
is just
not going to cut it.
So while I think it is beneficial to be open to new things at all
times, there are as always two sides to any story. The
on 9/7/05 11:11 AM, Chris Martin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd definitely try those first before forking out 2 grand.
Its not that I really have a choice, I do not have a spare mac around, so I
need new hardware no matter what. To move OS's on a live mysql server and
then get the new one up,
on 9/7/05 2:40 PM, Bruce Dembecki at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're happy with our Mac based MySQL servers in many respects. We've
got some 64 bit issues that are causing a little grief, so we're
looking at our options... Obviously working with Apple and MySQL to
determine the real reason for
Scott Haneda wrote:
Hello, currently I run mysql 3.x on Mac OS X 10.3.
I have about as much ram in the machine as I can, and have tunes it the best
I can, however, I still see the performance drop pretty badly at times.
After reading this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 I
For hardware we are just assembling generic Athlon 64 boxes.
I just put together two Dual core A64 4400+ boxes as web
servers, running them as a two node cluster.
My new DB box is a Dual core 4400+ with 4gigs of memory
and 10k sata drives. I know some folks have had trouble with
the 10k
Yeah, 64 bit isn't working... we can set the memory partition for
InnoDB to some big number, like say 10G or more (on the 16G Xserves),
and it will launch, so it has 64 bit OS and 64 bit MySQL Binaries...
We get past the first hurdle, but in practise it just doesn't run...
It works fine
on 9/7/05 8:42 PM, Bruce Dembecki at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, 64 bit isn't working... we can set the memory partition for
InnoDB to some big number, like say 10G or more (on the 16G Xserves),
and it will launch, so it has 64 bit OS and 64 bit MySQL Binaries...
We get past the first
And one other thing... our smallest load database server was a pair
of G4 XServes, running about 300 queries per second, taking 5%CPU on
the top display (which on OS X is 5% of one CPU) We ran the same
load on a pair of Sun V440 Quad processor with 16Gbytes of memory and
it used 30 -
14 matches
Mail list logo
