I did not have any of these settings explicitly set in my latest my.cnf trialsm, except key_buffer, and I ommitted the innodb ones, as we are not (currently) using innodb... would there be any benefit? transactions are not a priority, so says my client, so he does not use them.
I see the query_cache_size is rather large here, but I am unsure what the default size would be. I do not know, yet, how large I can/should make either setting, but, it does appear to work without malloc/memory errors appearing in the log. Note: while it bitched in the logs about the malloc setting, the server did not crash, but, kept running. Obviously with an undetermined amount of cache. I cannot seem to find any good way to know how much ram (cache/buffer/other) mysql uses, as the top output from osx is not very appealing... not that linux top tells me much more either. On average, on the old system (all on one box) mysql was said to be using about 350MB avg in top... except after the nightly optimize/repair script which left it using 1.2G of ram for hours, and making all queries rather slow.
Also- a more G5 specific question: as MySql is supposed to gain much from the OS disk caching, how does OSX/HFS+ compare to other *nIX filesystems... such as Linux 2.4 w/reiserfs?
-- Adam Goldstein White Wolf Networks http://whitewlf.net
On Jan 26, 2004, at 11:49 AM, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
2GB was the per-process memory limit in Mac OS X 10.2 and earlier. 10.3 increased this to 4GB per-process. I've gotten MySQL running with 3GB of RAM on the G5 previously.
This is an excerpt from a prior email to the list from back in October when I was first testing MySQL on the G5:
> query_cache_size=1024M > bulk_insert_buffer_size=256M > tmp_table_size=128M > sort_buffer=8M > read_rnd_buffer_size=8M > key_buffer=768M > record_buffer=32M > myisam_sort_buffer_size=512M > innodb_buffer_pool_size=1024M > innodb_additional_mem_pool_size=32M
> However, for some reason, when I swapped the values key_buffer and query_cache_size to try and give
> key_buffer 1GB, it failed. I swapped the values back and it worked fine... odd.
- Gabriel
On Jan 26, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Brent Baisley wrote:
Yes, MySQL is capable of using more than 2GB, but it still must obey the limits of the underlying OS. This means file sizes, memory allocation and whatever else. Have you heard of anybody allocating more the 2GB using OSX? I've heard of quite a bit more using Linux or other Unix flavors, but not OSX.
As for optimizing settings, you need to profile you work load. You may actually run into I/O, CPU or Network bottleneck before you hit a memory bottleneck. You need to run things and find where the bottleneck is to optimize performance.
On Jan 26, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Adam Goldstein wrote:
Others on this list have claimed to be able to set over 3G, and my failure is with even less than 2G (though, I am unsure if there is a combination of other memory settings working together to create an >2GB situation combined)
-- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search & Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
