On Oct 23, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Moderately...it kinda depends on the budget available. I regard
Solaris + Oracle as one of the most reliable combinations for
moderate to extreme load, for a system that might well be in
operation for five to ten years. If I was going to do FreeBSD, I
might look into Postgres instead of MySQL; well, I might look into
something else than MySQL under many circumstances. I've gotten
some pretty good use out of OpenBase, for another choice.
I believe the front-end application is MySQL dependent, but what is
so much better about PostgreSQL? I understand that it has some more
advanced features, but if they are not used, then what is the
advantage? (I really like the InnooDB storage in MySQL)
I'm not sure whether avoiding deadlocks and using row-level locking
by default qualifies as "advanced features", but unless you use
InnoDB with MySQL, you don't get that from MySQL. Postgres has been
around for a lot longer, and isn't as volatile as MySQL seems to be;
also, it avoids some of the needless timer overhead that MySQL seems
to enjoy, and the less-accurate-but-much-quicker gettimeofday() under
Linux helps MySQL on that platform versus FreeBSD.
As for the disk configuration, using RAID-5 is one of the worst
possible choices for a database; using multiple RAID-1 mirrors or
a RAID-10 config would probably do a lot better in terms of
performance and reliability.
Is RAID5 really that bad when a lot of fast disks are used and the
controller has a decent cache with a BBWC? Thanks for the feedback
guys.
Yes, RAID-5 really can be that bad, unless your database is read-only
or read-mostly. Lots of small writes will perform badly under
RAID-5, even with a battery-backed write-cache in write-back mode...
--
-Chuck
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
