Re: mysqld memory usage

2009-02-02 Thread Sebastian Tennant
Quoth Baron Schwartz : > So I assume you have a terabyte of RAM in the server, since you didn't > say... OMG, it's using 143GB of RAM when it's idle? Wow.. > > :-) You need to provide some more details here. I can't judge > whether there is any issue at all. Sorry. My VPS has 144 MB of RAM so

Re: mysqld memory usage

2009-02-02 Thread Baron Schwartz
So I assume you have a terabyte of RAM in the server, since you didn't say... OMG, it's using 143GB of RAM when it's idle? Wow.. :-) You need to provide some more details here. I can't judge whether there is any issue at all. Baron On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Sebastian Tennant wrote: > H

Re: mysqld memory usage

2009-02-02 Thread Sebastian Tennant
Quoth wult...@gmail.com: > Through your conf file(s) you have told MySQL how much memory it may > consume. As long as the server does not go beyond what it is told it > may consume it is not doing anything wrong. Thanks. I'll have a look in the conf file. At the moment it's running as it came ou

Re: mysqld memory usage

2009-02-02 Thread Sebastian Tennant
Quoth Walter Heck : > You could bring it down, but the real question is if you really want > to do that? Making the buffers and caches smaller will reduce the > memory used, but it also reduces performance. Noted. > Could you tell us what you are hoping to use MySQL for and why you > wanna bring

Re: mysqld memory usage

2009-02-01 Thread Walter Heck
You could bring it down, but the real question is if you really want to do that? Making the buffers and caches smaller will reduce the memory used, but it also reduces performance. Could you tell us what you are hoping to use MySQL for and why you wanna bring the memory usage down? Walter OlinDa

mysqld memory usage

2009-02-01 Thread Sebastian Tennant
Hi all, I recently installed MySQL (version 5.0) on my Debian Lenny VPS and mysqld uses 14.3% of memory when idle. Is this a known issue? I'm aware that version 5.0 is not the latest version but it's the one currently shipped by Debian Lenny (testing) so I'm loathe to 'manually' install a later

Re: RESOLVED Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-26 Thread Paul DuBois
At 12:23 + 3/26/04, Tim Cutts wrote: Tim: Can you bring your libc to the latest patch level? Not necessary. I resolved the problem: binlog_cache_size was set to 32MB I didn't realise that this would automatically be allocated to every thread, even if there are no InnoDB or BDB tables in th

RESOLVED Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-26 Thread Tim Cutts
Tim: Can you bring your libc to the latest patch level? Not necessary. I resolved the problem: binlog_cache_size was set to 32MB I didn't realise that this would automatically be allocated to every thread, even if there are no InnoDB or BDB tables in the entire instance. This explains why --

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-25 Thread Sasha Pachev
Tim Cutts wrote: On 25 Mar 2004, at 10:10, Tim Cutts wrote: No, indeed. I'm going to try building mysql myself, on the machine on which it's going to be running, and see whether that still has the issue... The version compiled natively on the machine does the same thing (although it uses a li

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-25 Thread Tim Cutts
On 25 Mar 2004, at 10:10, Tim Cutts wrote: No, indeed. I'm going to try building mysql myself, on the machine on which it's going to be running, and see whether that still has the issue... The version compiled natively on the machine does the same thing (although it uses a little less memory

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-25 Thread Tim Cutts
On 25 Mar 2004, at 06:31, Heikki Tuuri wrote: you can use the command SHOW INNODB STATUS; to check how much memory InnoDB has allocated in total. Please report what it says at the time of the memory explosion. Well, that was informative, but in a negative sort of way. SHOW INNODB STATUS produ

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-25 Thread Tim Cutts
On 25 Mar 2004, at 05:01, Sasha Pachev wrote: Innodb to my knowledge does not allocate very much locally per thread, and should not allocate anything at all if you are not doing any queries. That's what I thought. Based on the test results you have reported, I would put your libc as the primary

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-24 Thread Heikki Tuuri
Tim, - Original Message - From: "Sasha Pachev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:04 AM Subject: Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion > Tim Cutts wrote: > > > > On 22 Mar 2004, at 18:24, Tim

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-24 Thread Sasha Pachev
Tim Cutts wrote: On 22 Mar 2004, at 18:24, Tim Cutts wrote: Some users' code is causing MySQL's memory use to explode. By the time we reach about 200 simultaneous connections, the MySQL server is using 8GB of virtual memory, and then falls over (the machine is an AlphaServer ES45 with 8 GB of

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-24 Thread Yonah Russ
I'm not a big mysql expert but I think mysql has some buffers which it keeps per connection here are some examples (from mysql website): / /If you have complex queries |sort_buffer_size| and |tmp_table_size| are likely to be very important. Values will depend on the query complexity and availab

Re: Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-24 Thread Tim Cutts
On 22 Mar 2004, at 18:24, Tim Cutts wrote: Some users' code is causing MySQL's memory use to explode. By the time we reach about 200 simultaneous connections, the MySQL server is using 8GB of virtual memory, and then falls over (the machine is an AlphaServer ES45 with 8 GB of physical memory,

Mystifying mysqld memory usage explosion

2004-03-22 Thread Tim Cutts
Some users' code is causing MySQL's memory use to explode. By the time we reach about 200 simultaneous connections, the MySQL server is using 8GB of virtual memory, and then falls over (the machine is an AlphaServer ES45 with 8 GB of physical memory, and 16 GB of swap, although processes are c