jaymc

I was only going to mirror one disk with RAID 1 I'm more concerned that with RAID 0 one disk failure will destroy all data Would RAID 5 work better for mysql?

I have an array of 8 10k 36GB disks My databases accumulate 3gb storage What would be the best raid config be I think RAID 1 mirrored for real time backup and twice as fast read access Anyone disagree?

Ok that makes sense as it did actually only register as 3.5GB although the graphics is only 8MB!

Windows XP Only supports 4GB of ram Server 2003 enterprise edition will do 32GB I think I am going to go with centos 4, version 5 will only support 16GB of memory also

Yeh they are the same socket, just that the CPU is faster than motherboard spec

A server I have supports 2Ghz to 3Ghz CPU's What would happen if I used a 3.4Ghz CPU? Will it work but clock at 3Ghz or not work?

Great, thanks Any input on the best OS to run as the host? A lot of people say Windows XP is a good choice I'd prefer to use windows as Im more familiar with that but someone that you still have the issue of stability that comes with win32, so linux maybe a better option?

Yeh, I gathered Does anyone have any input on this?

And why do you suggest that?

I've acquired a big project and an equally big server for this, Dell 6600 32GB ram, 4xCPU My first mission is to get some virtual machines going on it, for this I will use VMWARE My question is, what product from VMWARE can/should I use to do this for free? I have seen VMWARE SERVER, PLAYER and ESX but there are so many other, its confusing! Im pretty sure ESX is its own base operating system, that would be cool as I don't want to run a base OS if I don't have to If I do have to, what OS should I run underneath to host the VMWARE environment?

Its just one website which is mysql driven and I have plans to grow it by 500% so I need to plan for the future Building a platform with load balancing etc, but at the moment I just need to know how CPU intensive mysql is

Change of plan, I know have a Dell PowerEdge 6600 which has 32GB of memory and 4x single core Xeon 2.5Ghz I want to virtualise this so I can split it into Virtual Severs using Vmware or Xen I need to know if I can get away with assiging the mysql virtual server 1 CPU,with 16GB of memory As I've stated above I know the more memory you can give mysql for key buffers etc the faster it will run as it will not need to touch disks as much, but does it still need a fair amount of CPU power, if so, how much? Is 2.5Ghz going to be enough or is there a good chance I will notice performance bottle knecks Cheers

earlier? Try the last month #mysql irc dudes tell me it's impossible due to table size I've now discovered that sometimes it will execute in less than a second, others 12 seconds That's with no cache by the way.

EXPLAIN SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE f.user, f.friend, f.gender, f.x, f.timestamp, c.propic AS image FROM friends f INNER JOIN cache c ON f.friend = c.username WHERE f.user = 'jaymc' AND f.gender = 'Male' ORDER BY f.x DESC , f.timestamp DESC LIMIT 0 , 10 id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 SIMPLE f ref user,friend,user_2 user_2 27 const 2994 Using where; Using index; Using filesort 1 SIMPLE c eq_ref PRIMARY PRIMARY 27 mysql.f.friend 1 5 million rows by the way

I take snap shots of the process list, this was the highest running in the list in terms of time

I have been watching the mysql process list and often find some queries taking 50 seconds I then copy that query and run it on a test server and it takes 0.3 seconds There is no cache involved as that query has never been run before on the test server Can you think of a reason why a query can be instant and then another time take 50 seconds. By the way, this query was the highest running one, so its not as if there was a query running ahead of it (51 seconds) Which had locked the table. Table is InnoDB Perhaps its not reading something from memory, so resorts direct to disk hence 50 seconds rather than 0.3 Please advise why this may happen

How can you optimize this type of query? There are a few cases where I need to perform thie type of 'loose' search

the dollar sign was a typo, it was meant to be % So if its using the index.. why so long with a wild card?

It's not max connections, 200 and usually only 50 concurrent as per server status I have had this issue for years with browsers It's the same ifloading an image 3mb in size, everything After it will hang until it's finished

optedon 242, 2nd series. Think they are 1.8gz each eqiiv, so 3.6ghzof power Should suffice with nice disks and he'll of a lot of ram

Yeh it loads no issues with another browser

But do I need powerful as hell CPU's or will 2 basic opterons do the trick, with 12GB of ram and some nice DISKS

You rate CPU before RAM? Seriously.. Can anyone else advise on this..

So your saying as long as I am ordering by DESC and then DESC again no need to bother with forcing the order of the index? ORDER BY f.x DESC, f.timestamp DESC = no need to worry? By the way, I read this Lets say you have the query "select b from tbl where a=5" Assuming column "a" is indexed and table is not clustered by this column MySQL will need to perform at least 2 reads, at first to read index page to find row pointer and when to read the row itself. If you would have "covering index" (a,b) instead of indexing just column "a" you will have only index read needed, so you could expect 2 times performance improvement, sometimes a lot more. This says to use a covering index I need to cover fields that are part of the SELECT statement.. in your suggestion it is just fields in the WHERE and ORDER by statement?

Its an mp3 file streamed from a flash player I have had this issue with <OBJECT> and EMBED though, so it must be queue