On Mon, April 13, 2009 11:55, mos wrote: > Jerry, > > At 09:53 AM 4/13/2009, Jerry Schwartz wrote: >>Sorry for top-posting, but this is getting unwieldy. >> >>The problems with hardware in multiprocessor systems have been dealt with >>long since, assuming that Intel, AMD, et al have implemented the >> solutions. >>Ten years ago and more, I worked with machines capable of 128 processors >> and >>they seemed to work okay. > > Well having a machine with 128 processors and actually getting MySQL to > take advantage of 128 processors is a different matter entirely. > MySQL does not scale well beyond 4 processors, at least not like > PostgreSql > does. MySQL seems to hit a plateau rather quickly. If XtraDb's modified > Innodb plugin scales better, then fine. But I haven't seen any benchmarks > showing the speed improvements relative to the number of processors used > and is something I'd really like to see. > >>Of course, there was a price difference. :<) >> >>As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the >> DB) >>locking and disk access speed. > > Of course. When it comes to MySQL, I would invest more money into more > memory and fast SSD drives rather than more CPU's. You'll get a bigger > bang > for the buck. :) > > Mike It sounds like we are talking about a server were everything is trying to get at the same database and tables, correct? Sort of, it you had to put Best Buy or Sears on a box how would you do it, vs if you had many different databases all being hit at the same time. Has anyone benchmarked that scenario?
------ William R. Mussatto Systems Engineer http://www.csz.com 909-920-9154 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
