<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.18.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 11:18 -0600, Brendan wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Andres Paglayan wrote:
> what a good layout for the db and we would be?
You mean like a stripe layout for the underlying fs/raid? If you're
getting a lot of concurrent accesses from different users you want to
have large enough stripes that (hopefully) any given access will only
trigger a seek on a single disk. Since seeks are expensive, you want to
keep simultaneous access to the same spindle to a minimum. It all
depends on the access pattern. If you're heavy on read operations and
light on writes, RAID5 or 6 will give you good performance and large
volume size. If writes are more prominent, you may need to use
non-parity RAID like RAID10 to keep the data moving. If you're really
lucky, your entire db will fit in memory via disk cache and there will
only be the occasional write.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
doesn't look like a trivial issue,<BR>
probably the db won't grow bigger than a GB in couple of years,<BR>
although the usage of the writes is relatively 1/10 compared with the writes,<BR>
every actions gets logged, what makes the writes heavy as well,<BR>
I just got what seems to be a good mysql book with lots of performance tuning info,<BR>
oh boy, I love learning, <BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
-Brendan
_______________________________________________
</PRE>
nmglug mailing list
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>