On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:47:35PM -0700, William R. Mussatto wrote:
>
> Have you tried mytop with debian and 3.23.49 <-- version in Debian stable?
> we keep getting core dumps. Does it have to be run as root? Sorry if OT
The only Debian Stable box I have is powered off most of the time anymore.
e Pattishall
>> -->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> -->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated
>> slave -->[also]
>> -->
>> -->On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:36:30AM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall
>> wrote:
>> -->>
>> --
> -->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
> -->[also]
> -->
> -->On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:36:30AM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall
> wrote:
> -->>
> -->> Yes, I use a custom mytop (sent my patches in to you). In fact I'
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:51 AM
-->To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
-->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
-->[also]
-->
-->
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:36:30AM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote:
>
> Yes, I use a custom mytop (sent my patches in to you). In fact I'm
> making a signed java applet to simulate mytop, just to be fancy ;) as
> well as not having to ssh into a central box that can reach all my
> servers.
R
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Dan Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:35 AM
-->To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
-->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
-->
-->A better questi
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:24 AM
-->To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
-->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
-->[also]
-->
-->
In the last episode (Sep 30), Dathan Vance Pattishall said:
> I haven't notice a gain from increasing the key_buffer on a dedicated
> slave. Let's take 3.23.5x for instance. Since there is only 1 thread for
> replication, a Serialized committal of data, I wouldn't imagine that
> key_buffer at highe
D]
> -->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
>
>
> -->Is that all your slave is doing? Replicating from the master? Are
> there
> -->no other queries being run against it?
> -->
>
> It takes 50% of all reads from the app
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:23 AM
-->To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
-->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
-->Is that al
-->-Original Message-
-->From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:23 AM
-->To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
-->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Re: What are the effects of key_buffer on a dedicated slave
-->
-->That depe
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:10:29AM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote:
> I haven't notice a gain from increasing the key_buffer on a dedicated
> slave. Let's take 3.23.5x for instance. Since there is only 1 thread for
> replication, a Serialized committal of data, I wouldn't imagine that
> key_bu
I haven't notice a gain from increasing the key_buffer on a dedicated
slave. Let's take 3.23.5x for instance. Since there is only 1 thread for
replication, a Serialized committal of data, I wouldn't imagine that
key_buffer at higher levels say around 50% of system memory would give a
performance bo
13 matches
Mail list logo
