> Hi Simon, > > Thank you for your attention.I really appreciate your pacience. > > 1) If it will not make it go faster why should I do it? I did this config > because I thought that the server should not use swap memory because disk > memory is slower than ram.
We all think that our servers sould not use swap. However, it's a fact that sometimes you need (hopefully only for a short time) more memory and then you need your swap. If your swap is used 100% (and you have already used more that 50% of your swap) and the main memory too, your kernel will happily kill any processes it want's to keep things going. There is really no reason to save some megabytes of todays cheap diskspace. > > 2) My cache_size confg (75% of memory) is not the appropriate value? I am > considering in buy 1Gb more of memory. > > See that in vmstats (the 1st topic) us+sy never gets more than 60. So, > the only solution that came to me is to buy more memory. > I have the same database in other clients companies with a 2gb ram server > and i dont have performance problems. I use the same pattern of > configuration: > 75% of ram = cache_size > 25% of cache_size = cat_cache_supply That's really a difficult question. If you have a server which _only_ runs MaxDB, no apps and nothing, it could be okay. However, you almost never have such a situation which means you have to run your apps and db, then check how your memory is used, and adjust to fit your needs. Simon > > Do you agree? > > > On 7/13/06, Simon Matter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Simon, >> > >> > Memory usage: >> > total used free shared buffers >> cached >> > Mem: 1009 995 14 0 >> 11 168 >> > -/+ buffers/cache: 815 194 >> > Swap: 517 294 223 >> >> 1) It's a good idea to have at least as much swap space than real >> memory. >> I suggest to increase swap to 1-2G in your case. (of course this won't >> make your db faster). >> >> 2) Without analyzing your memory situation in detail, it seems that you >> already use too much which leads to 294M of swap being used. If some of >> the 294M is related to MaxDB, it's very clear that it may slow down >> things. I think reducing cache_size may help a bit then. >> >> Simon >> >> > >> > I changed the maxcpu parameter to 1. Lets see what happens. >> > Thank you very much for the help. >> > >> > Best regards >> > >> > On 7/12/06, Simon Matter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> MAXCPU is already with value 2. >> >> >> cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep "processor" | wc -l returns 2 >> processors. >> >> >> >> You get 2 processors but you also get that with 1 CPU and HT enabled. >> If >> >> you have only 1 single core CPU, set MAYCPU to 1, really. >> >> >> >> BTW, how is your real memory usage? It looks a bit high for me >> >> considering >> >> you "only" have 1Gb RAM. >> >> >> >> Simon >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Castro >> > Website: http://danielti.no-ip.info:2139 >> > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Skype: danielti2005 >> > ICQ : 316727989 >> > Jabber: danielti >> > Linux User: 387864 >> > AOL User: Danielti2005 >> > Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo >> Gloria >> > >> >> -- >> MaxDB Discussion Mailing List >> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/maxdb >> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Castro > Website: http://danielti.no-ip.info:2139 > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Skype: danielti2005 > ICQ : 316727989 > Jabber: danielti > Linux User: 387864 > AOL User: Danielti2005 > Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria > -- MaxDB Discussion Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/maxdb To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
