Re: Raid level suggestions for mysql-server
In one of the more effective high-loads shops I have worked in, we deployed RAID 1 for logs and RAID 10 for data. The number of disks we put into those RAID 10's depended on anticipated load of the specific application. We often found ourselves needing additional spindles to meet high I/O needs, often leaving a lot of unused raw storage space. The system was usually deployed on a single disk, being more-or-less static and easily reproducible.. Once you are booted and primed, the system disk barely gets touched.. all the important stuff is in RAM. - michael dykman On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote: Gšötz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote: Hi, soon I'll get a SUN X4170 with 8*2,5 SAS 300 GB harddisks. (24 GB RAM) This system could be our new central mysql-server for some LAMP-systems. (right now about 50 GB mysql data total, roughly 60-70% reads.) What would be a good raid-Layout for the server? I was thinking of one large 1+0 or 0+1 as 1.2TB would be more than enought. Or may be I do split things up like this: one raid 1 for the system, one raid 1 for logfiles, one raid 1+0/0+1 for the database. Any suggestions? I have a very similar HP box with 8 drives too - I've got it running one RAID1 (2x72Gb) for system and one RAID6 (6x146Gb) for data. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=mdyk...@gmail.com -- - michael dykman - mdyk...@gmail.com May you live every day of your life. Jonathan Swift -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Raid level suggestions for mysql-server
Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote: Hi, soon I'll get a SUN X4170 with 8*2,5 SAS 300 GB harddisks. (24 GB RAM) This system could be our new central mysql-server for some LAMP-systems. (right now about 50 GB mysql data total, roughly 60-70% reads.) What would be a good raid-Layout for the server? I was thinking of one large 1+0 or 0+1 as 1.2TB would be more than enought. Or may be I do split things up like this: one raid 1 for the system, one raid 1 for logfiles, one raid 1+0/0+1 for the database. Any suggestions? I have a very similar HP box with 8 drives too - I've got it running one RAID1 (2x72Gb) for system and one RAID6 (6x146Gb) for data. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: RAID stripe size recommendations
On Sep 28, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Atle Veka wrote: I am planning on running some tests on a SATA server with a 3ware 9000 series RAID card to see if there's a stripe size that performs better than This might be able to help you out: http://hashmysql.org/index.php?title=Opteron_HOWTO These are difficult questions. you also should figure out what the block size of your filesystem is. I think ideally it should be N*stripe_size where N is the number of disks you have. This way you can read one block as a set of N IOs in parallel across your disks. Also note that SATA is probably not what you want if you need decent IO. SCSI will still give you a win. Let us know what you find out... Check the archives too. I think there was some commentary about using a 16k strip and seeing a significant performance boost. Also some RAID controllers don't allow you to change the strip size. Moral of the story is that disk sucks... Disk is the new tape... Kevin Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA AIM/YIM - sfburtonator, Web - http://www.feedblog.org/ GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID/MySQL configuration question
My guess is that the RAID has nothing to do with it -- it seems very unlikely. In any case, if you want top performance out of your raid, you may want to change things up. You'd get better performance if you didn't use RAID5. Use RAID1 or RAID10 for your data drives. RAID5 is slower than these other methods. Based on the information you've given, I'm assuming a few things: 1) your raid controller supports RAID10 2) you have an even number of drives. If this is the case, I would recreate the raid as a RAID10 (pair up your drives and then create a stripe out of the pairs). Then you can feel free to allocate space to whatever partition struction you need. On 8/25/05, Curious George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'morning all! (Using Red Hat Linux Enterprise 4.1) I have a Dell PowerEdge 2800 with a PERC 4 RAID controller. The RAID controller has one RAID 1 mirror and one RAID 5 stripe volume created. We installed most of the OS stuff on the RAID 1 set and the /usr/local and /var on the RAID 5 set (since the Red Hat MySQL rpm puts the data directory under /var ). I'd like to know if there are any better ways to configure this (I can repartition and reinstall the OS, if necessary). background I'm having problems with a Tomcat application (OSP - ePortfolios) that uses a lot of disk space for uploaded files (under Tomcat directory which I install under /usr/local). Not sure how large the MySQL database will grow to be. I installed the Red Hat MySQL rpm, but not sure if it is RAID-aware and considering compiling MySQL from source ( --with raid ?). Or my problem may be with the MySQL Connector/J driver (which would be a question for the mysql-java list). The application builds and installs fine with no errors, but Tomcat only works for the static directories (i.e. /jsp-examples ) and not with the application that interacts with MySQL. I've installed this application successfully on an identical non-raid system. The only differenced between the two machines is that the problem child is RAID (configured as above) and the java sdk version changed from _08 to _09. /background 1) Best way to configure the RAID/partitions for best MySQL performance? 2) Is MySQL RAID-aware if not compiled: - - with raid? (unsure if the Red Hat rpm used that) 3) Is there a way to tell if a problem is specifically related to the MySQL Connector/J driver or a problem connecting to MySQL? (probably should direct that one to the mysql-java list, eh?) Thanks in advance for any help. This is the first RAID machine I've ever worked with. : \ Darren Addy University of Nebraska at Kearney -- 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]
Re: RAID/MySQL configuration question
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Gary Richardson wrote: My guess is that the RAID has nothing to do with it -- it seems very unlikely. In any case, if you want top performance out of your raid, you may want to change things up. You'd get better performance if you didn't use RAID5. Use RAID1 or RAID10 for your data drives. RAID5 is slower than these other methods. Based on the information you've given, I'm assuming a few things: 1) your raid controller supports RAID10 2) you have an even number of drives. If this is the case, I would recreate the raid as a RAID10 (pair up your drives and then create a stripe out of the pairs). Then you can feel free to allocate space to whatever partition struction you need. On 8/25/05, Curious George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'morning all! (Using Red Hat Linux Enterprise 4.1) I have a Dell PowerEdge 2800 with a PERC 4 RAID controller. The RAID controller has one RAID 1 mirror and one RAID 5 stripe volume created. We installed most of the OS stuff on the RAID 1 set and the /usr/local and /var on the RAID 5 set (since the Red Hat MySQL rpm puts the data directory under /var ). use LVM to set things up, so you can resize later without taking the system down. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Partner Sr. Manager 7 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 921-0381 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, purge the message from your system and notify the sender immediately. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID, MySQL and SATA - benchmarks
I found the article very interesting. It seems they couldn't trash 3ware cards enough. We swear by 3ware cards -- other than the PCIX riser card issue, we haven't a single problem with them. Our production database server is running off of a RAID1 for the OS and a RAID10 for the data and every time we are doing schema maintenance or database migration, we are blown away by the speed of the machine. BTW, never use Western Digital Raptor drives. Some people may remember me posting about them around October. Out of 6 drives in the machine, we've had 10 failures. We're currently replacing the drives with Seagates. We'll take the 3K RPM hit for piece of mind. On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:04:54 +1100, Richard Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tweakers.net has completed a comparison of 9 serial ATA RAID 0/1/5/10 controllers at: http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557 There is a specific section on MySQL performance in the section: http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/25 Just thought these articles would be of interest to some (it's interesting to see the difference between single drive operations and multiple drive operations - up to 12 drives, with the different RAID levels). Here's my rough speed comparison based upon eyeballing the graphs. Some controllers were better than others so this represents a rough average of the entire set of controllers: Single drive - 1.0 RAID 1 - 2 disks - 1.4 RAID5 - 3 disks - 1.7 RAID5 - 4 disks - 2.0 RAID10 - 4 disks - 2.0 RAID5 - 6 disks - 2.3 RAID5 - 8 disks - 2.4 RAID5 - 10 disks - 2.9 RAID5 - 12 disks - 3.1 The article also highlighted the difference between the reliable write-through mode and the write-back mode. In write-through mode, performance is degraded by approximately 50%. Clearly if you want reliability, a controller with a battery backup is highly recommended. On the issue of SCSI version SATA performance, it would appear that SCSI still performas somewhat better (about 20% more transactions but the test was comparing 15K RPM SCSI drives to 10K RPM SATA drives) but the reduced cost of SATA drives allows you to add more drives to achieve the same performance levels at lesser cost. With Serial ATA II drives around the corner (with Native Command Queueing) then I think we'll find SATA will take a much bigger lead in database performance. Really nice work from tweakers.net - would have been interesting to see the Linux performance too though. Best regards, Richard Dale. Norgate Investor Services - Premium quality Stock, Futures and Foreign Exchange Data for markets in Australia, Asia, Canada, Europe, UK USA - www.premiumdata.net -- 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]
RE: RAID Question
Paul: Thank you for your response. Another question: Would it cause a problem if I configure --with-raid and then never use it in any programming? Will it add any overhead? It would help if this feature is available for future use. Thanks 2nd time. Kirti -Original Message- From: Paul DuBois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:18 PM To: Kirti S. Bajwa; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RAID Question At 15:19 -0500 11/10/04, Kirti S. Bajwa wrote: Hello List: System: RH9, MySQL 4.1.7 I am in the process of re-setting up (I have test setup 4-5 times) a data server with the above software. This server consists of 2-CPU (Intel) RAID-1, 1-40GB IDE HDD for O/S 2-250GB IDE HDD for storing data. 250 GB IDE HDD are mirrored (RAID-1). Previously, I setup RAID while setting up RH9. Recently, while reviewing the MySQL, documentation, I noticed the following directive for configure command: # ./configure -prefix=/usr/local/mysql -with-raid While researching on GOOGLE, I did find quite a bit of information on MySQL RAID HOWTO search, but nothing to answer my question. Can someone explain how the aboce directive in configure works? In my setup, do I need the above directive as shown? It doesn't have anything to do with hardware raid. It enables support for the RAID table options that allow you to split the data file for MyISAM tables into several files. See the description for RAID_TYPE, RAID_CHUNKS, and RAID_CHUNKSIZE options at: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/CREATE_TABLE.html -- Paul DuBois, MySQL Documentation Team Madison, Wisconsin, USA MySQL AB, www.mysql.com -- 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]
RE: RAID Question
Hello List: System: RH9, MySQL 4.1.7 I am in the process of re-setting up (I have test setup 4-5 times) a data server with the above software. This server consists of 2-CPU (Intel) RAID-1, 1-40GB IDE HDD for O/S 2-250GB IDE HDD for storing data. 250 GB IDE HDD are mirrored (RAID-1). Previously, I setup RAID while setting up RH9. Recently, while reviewing the MySQL, documentation, I noticed the following directive for configure command: # ./configure prefix=/usr/local/mysql with-raid While researching on GOOGLE, I did find quite a bit of information on MySQL RAID HOWTO search, but nothing to answer my question. Can someone explain how the aboce directive in configure works? In my setup, do I need the above directive as shown? Thanks. Kirti -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: raid configure option?
In the last episode (Apr 13), Yonah Russ said: Can anyone explain what the raid configure option does? Is this for use when storing mysql on hardware raid? if so, what type(s)- ie. striping, mirroring? It's mainly to support tables over 2gb on old Linux kernels that can't do large files. You can also do a poor-man's RAID with it by creating a RAID table, moving the files to separate disks, and creating symlinks that point to the new locations. Only striping is supported. If you have it, use hardware RAID and regular mysql tables instead. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID Strip size
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:33:17AM -0500, Brent Baisley wrote: Actually, you want to try to match the stripe size to your data size. The ideal would be to have a stripe size equal to the size of a record in your database. This way the disk needs only one read or write for each database record. That depends on the storage engine you're using. For MyISAM, yes, the record size is a good way to do it. But for InnoDB, you'd probably want to use its page size. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 4.0.15-Yahoo-SMP: up 88 days, processed 3,535,395,556 queries (464/sec. avg) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID Strip size
Actually, you want to try to match the stripe size to your data size. The ideal would be to have a stripe size equal to the size of a record in your database. This way the disk needs only one read or write for each database record. You really don't want to fragment a record. A large stripe size is good if you have large files, like graphic files, that you read in their entirety. It's bad if you are reading small amounts of data, like in a database. For instance, if you set a stripe size of 128K and you need to read 100 records that are not in the same disk sector, the disk ends up retrieving over 12MB of data. If your typical record only contains 2K of data, that's only 200K of data you need out of the 12MB that the disk retrieved. That's a big waste. On the flip side, a stripe size too small will fragment your records and cause excessive disk access. On the other hand, if you are typically doing full table scans, then you are reading most of a large file and a large stripe size would be good. You really need to know your data and how it is accessed in order to set an optimal stripe size. Even then, you need to benchmark to see if what you set if correct, especially since different tables have different data sizes and access patterns. When in doubt, it's usually best to leave the stripe size at the typical default of 4K. The reason for this is that most operating systems track RAM in 4K increments, so there is a one-to-one relation between disk sector size and RAM sector size. At least that's what I learned a few years ago in an IBM class, perhaps RAM is tracked differently now with the extremely large RAM configurations that are now possible. On Dec 3, 2003, at 4:05 PM, trevor%tribenetwork.com wrote: Greetings Mysqlians, Please comment on the validity of my logic: In setting the RAID(10/2disks) strip size everything I read says you must benchmark your particular system. Since that is not an option, my current logic is to have a large strip size (1024) with the reasoning that fewer writes/reads (yet longer writes) will be better in a database which has a large amount of disk access. The disk cache size is 1GB on our disk device but that is not quite enough to hold all the tables which get accessed(written to and read from) frequently. I figure setting a large stripe size is a conservative approach allowing for better scalability. Many Thanks, Trevor -- 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]
RE: RAID, miiror OR replication?
Hi, Having implemented all the solutions you suggest, I would need more information to answer this problem. 1. What is the acceptable uptime of the system? 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99% ? 2. In the event of a failure, what is the acceptable recovery time? None, 20 mins, 1 hr, 5 hrs, 1 day ? 3. What hardware is running the DB now? 4. How many queries per second is the system running? Is it read heavy or write heavy? (and what about the future) 5. What is the hardware budget? Just the existing hardware, $1000, $5000 etc.. 6. How much time can you afford to spend on it? With this info, I could help to suggest a solution... But without it, You may receive ideas for solutions that are overkill or underkill for your needs. Hope this helps, Andrew -Original Message- From: Richard Reina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday 06 October 2003 20:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RAID, miiror OR replication? I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive failures on my database server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Richard -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID, miiror OR replication?
Hi, Having implemented all the solutions you suggest, I would need more information to answer this problem. 1. What is the acceptable uptime of the system? 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99% ? 2. In the event of a failure, what is the acceptable recovery time? None, 20 mins, 1 hr, 5 hrs, 1 day ? 3. What hardware is running the DB now? 4. How many queries per second is the system running? Is it read heavy or write heavy? (and what about the future) 5. What is the hardware budget? Just the existing hardware, $1000, $5000 etc.. 6. How much time can you afford to spend on it? With this info, I could help to suggest a solution... But without it, You may receive ideas for solutions that are overkill or underkill for your needs. Hope this helps, Andrew -Original Message- From: Richard Reina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday 06 October 2003 20:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RAID, miiror OR replication? I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive failures on my database server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Richard -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID, mirror OR replication?
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 14:21, Richard Reina wrote: I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive failures on my DB server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Richard, if you have the resources available I would suggest doing both RAID and Replication. RAID 5 maximizes your disk space, while making your system pretty fault tolerant. (this of course assumes Hot Swappable SCSI Drives). The replication gives you the added level of fault tolerance, plus on a busy server DB reads can be offloaded to the replicant freeing up resources on the Master. Don't know how familiar you are with RAID so this is a breakdown of the most common options. RAID0 - disk Stripeing (very fast reads but one drive fails and everything is lost). Absolutely no fault tolerance. But an option for a Replicant. RAID1 - disk mirroring (Duplicate copy of everything on another harddrive - the problem is that you have to duplicate your drives. If you have a 80GB disk, you need 2 of them, but you still only use 80GB. RAID0+1 - disk striping w/ Mirroring, you have 2 RAID0 volumes of identical size that mirror to each other. You get the speed of RAID0, and the fault tolerance of RAID1. If you have 2 80GB disk striped, now you need 4 80GB disks and you only get space of 2 of the 80GBs. RAID5 - In my opinion the best choice. You maximize available space, since its (N-1) * Drive capacity. Meaning The number of drives - 1 is your capacity. The equivilent of 1 drive is used to store parity information. If one drive fails, the RAID Controller can autocorrect the missing information on the fly so your system slows down, but stays available. You remove the bad drive, put a new one in, and the new drive gets rebuilt and in a few hours you are back to full steam. You build a raid set with 4 80GB drives, your available capacity would be 240GB (4 Drives - 1 for parity) * 80GB. Richard -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Woody In a world without boundaries why do we need Gates and Windows? -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID, miiror OR replication?
Richard, If you want to protect against hard drive failures then a RAID setup is probably the best option. A RAID will ensure that you always have an up-to-the-instant backup of all of your data in case a drive goes bad; however, a RAID won'tstop a bug, virus, or error from screwing up your database. If this is your production server then I would suggest that you also invest in a secondary backup system (such as a tape drive). -Rob -Original Message- From: Richard Reina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RAID, miiror OR replication? I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive failures on my database server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Richard -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID or not?
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 1:21 PM -0400 Lefevre, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that is not true. mirroring gives you double the read speed and half the write speed. RAID5 gives you less than half the write speed. - OK, I see how it can give you double the read speed, but how can it give you have the write speed? Does it split the data between disks and then sync them later? No. You write 2x, remember. ;P Your write speed, best case and assuming no other bottlenecks (say an IDE a drive sharing the same controller with another IDE drive, esp. in the same mirror set) will be only as fast as the slowest drive in write mode. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 8:37 PM -0600 Jim McAtee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't quite understand the need to read data before any write. Why wouldn't it just calculate the parity of whatever is being written and just write it to disk? Wouldn't there be slack space, as with any disk system? Write a 1 byte file and it uses an N byte block on one disk, plus an N byte parity block on another. This wholly depends on the RAID subsystem, but better than 80% will need to either read the entire stripe, or hold off until they're writing the whole stripe at once. Remember the RAID is below the filesystem layer, and *separate* from it, esp. in the case of a hardware controller. Really big systems may (do) keep 'maps' of the space so they can cheat by not reading a strip when it knows it hasn't been written since (destructive) initialization and is thus all 0's. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not think it is true that mirroring gives no performance benefit (on a well implemented controller). For reads, the raid controller can read either copy of the data, so that effectively two reads can be in progress at the same time, doubling read performance. Yes, doubling read performance (best case) when compared with a non-RAID disk system. But with RAID5, you have more disks and can therefore read more than just two disks simultaneously. The more spindles you have, the better the performance. I was assuming that your number of spindles was set by your need to store daya. If this is so, the number of primary data drives, and hence spindles, is fixed. It is noly whtehr you have one parity drive, or N mirror drives. The latter is, of course, more expensive for a given storage capacity - but gives you higer performance for your money. On the write side, for small writes a raid 5 has to read the overwritten data (in order to remove it from the parity) then do a read/modify/write on the parity. I don't quite understand the need to read data before any write. Why wouldn't it just calculate the parity of whatever is being written and just write it to disk? Wouldn't there be slack space, as with any disk system? Write a 1 byte file and it uses an N byte block on one disk, plus an N byte parity block on another. Call the disks A, B, C, D, P. For some sector we are about to overwrite A with A'. The current contents of P are A^B^C^D (^ used for XOR). The final contents of P must be A'^B^C^D. We can read B, D and D to produce this valure ab initio. However, it is more efficient to read A and P, XOR them to produce B^C^D then XOR in the new data A'. In this case, both A and P must do read followed by write. Since this involves a full rotation between the read and the write, this is a relatively slow operation. This does not occur if we are overwrting all of A, B, C, and D because *in this case* we can do as you expect and calculate P on the fly. Performance again should be doubled (two writes on the mirrored system, read/overwrite and read/modify/write on the Raid5 system, with the two halves of each operation requiring a full rotation between them). For large writes, the Raid5 system catches up, because the parity can be entirely calculated from the data sent, so it does not need to do the reads. I would therefore expect a mirrored system to approach, but not reach, twice the performance of a Raid5 system A mirrored system when writing should, at best, be no faster than a non-mirrored system. Unlike reading, it has to write a complete copy of the data to both disks, so there are no performance gains to be had. RAID5 should be a bit slower than RAID1, due to the need for calculating parity. See explanation above. For large writes, you are correct. For smaller ones, and for the scruffy bits at the beginning and end of large writes, RAID 5 performance will approach 50% of Raid 1. Alec -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID or not?
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. I do not think it is true that mirroring gives no performance benefit (on a well implemented controller). For reads, the raid controller can read either copy of the data, so that effectively two reads can be in progress at the same time, doubling read performance. On the write side, for small writes a raid 5 has to read the overwritten data (in order to remove it from the parity) then do a read/modify/write on the parity. Performance again should be doubled (two writes on the mirrored system, read/overwrite and read/modify/write on the Raid5 system, with the two halves of each operation requiring a full rotation between them). For large writes, the Raid5 system catches up, because the parity can be entirely calculated from the data sent, so it does not need to do the reads. I would therefore expect a mirrored system to approach, but not reach, twice the performance of a Raid5 system - at the cost of nearly doubling the number of disks. This does depend on appropriate intelligence in the Raid controller. A badly designed controller can fail to take advantage of these gains. If you are concerned abut ultimate performance, it would be well worth benchmarking the actual raid controllers you are considering. Alec -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID or not?
-Original Message- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jon Drukman Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID or not? Lefevre, Steven wrote: I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. that is not true. mirroring gives you double the read speed and half the write speed. RAID5 gives you less than half the write speed. - OK, I see how it can give you double the read speed, but how can it give you have the write speed? Does it split the data between disks and then sync them later? that's why i said if your database app is mostly selects go for mirroring. the OP said his app is about 50% select, so i say mirroring is a good choice. and hey, what's wrong with having a backup? the computer doesn't work any harder, it's all handled through the RAID controller card anyway. - Of course, there's nothing wrong with having a backup, in fact he should. But I was under the mistaken impression that that was all disk mirroing did for you. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. I do not think it is true that mirroring gives no performance benefit (on a well implemented controller). For reads, the raid controller can read either copy of the data, so that effectively two reads can be in progress at the same time, doubling read performance. Yes, doubling read performance (best case) when compared with a non-RAID disk system. But with RAID5, you have more disks and can therefore read more than just two disks simultaneously. The more spindles you have, the better the performance. On the write side, for small writes a raid 5 has to read the overwritten data (in order to remove it from the parity) then do a read/modify/write on the parity. I don't quite understand the need to read data before any write. Why wouldn't it just calculate the parity of whatever is being written and just write it to disk? Wouldn't there be slack space, as with any disk system? Write a 1 byte file and it uses an N byte block on one disk, plus an N byte parity block on another. Performance again should be doubled (two writes on the mirrored system, read/overwrite and read/modify/write on the Raid5 system, with the two halves of each operation requiring a full rotation between them). For large writes, the Raid5 system catches up, because the parity can be entirely calculated from the data sent, so it does not need to do the reads. I would therefore expect a mirrored system to approach, but not reach, twice the performance of a Raid5 system A mirrored system when writing should, at best, be no faster than a non-mirrored system. Unlike reading, it has to write a complete copy of the data to both disks, so there are no performance gains to be had. RAID5 should be a bit slower than RAID1, due to the need for calculating parity. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
Jackson Miller wrote: I am setting up a dedicated MySQL server with some pretty heavy usage. I am not much of a sys admin (mostly a programmer). I have some questions about the best drive configuration. I have 4 SCSI drives currently. I would like to have 1 drive run the OS, 1 drive to be the MySQL data directory and 1 drive to be InnoDB (possibly raw partition). What is the best way for me to configure RAID? Here is the kind of load I am talking about: Uptime: 1749850 Threads: 44 Questions: 1266402021 Slow queries: 16923 Opens: 162177 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries per second avg: 723.720 if you're mostly running SELECTs then i would recommend a mirrored configuration. my server is in your ballpark: Uptime: 20689 Threads: 77 Questions: 11493312 Slow queries: 21 Opens: 1892 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 512 Queries per second avg: 555.528 i expect it to average higher after it's been running for more than 24 hrs... unfortunately we had to renumber its IP today so it was rebooted. it is cranking along great with mirrored 10K SCSI drives. we have tons more room to grow. don't forget about lots of RAM and a big query cache. they help a lot. this box actually only has 2G of RAM in it but it's doing fine. -jsd- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
I like using either raid 0+1.. it really cooks, or if you can'y spare the disks, raid 1 ...Something pushing that many queries, should probably be protected from disk failure. On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jackson Miller wrote: I am setting up a dedicated MySQL server with some pretty heavy usage. I am not much of a sys admin (mostly a programmer). I have some questions about the best drive configuration. I have 4 SCSI drives currently. I would like to have 1 drive run the OS, 1 drive to be the MySQL data directory and 1 drive to be InnoDB (possibly raw partition). What is the best way for me to configure RAID? Here is the kind of load I am talking about: Uptime: 1749850 Threads: 44 Questions: 1266402021 Slow queries: 16923 Opens: 162177 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries per second avg: 723.720 Thanks, -Jackson -- jackson miller cold feet creative 615.321.3300 / 800.595.4401 [EMAIL PROTECTED] cold feet presents Emma the world's easiest email marketing Learn more @ http://www.myemma.com -- 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]
Re: RAID or not?
Jackson, Jackson Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have 4 SCSI drives currently. Well, is you want Redundancy you don't have a choice. Mirror them. 2x 2 drives. You might want to put OS and write-ahead-log on one and InnoDB/MyISAM-data on the other. I would like to have 1 drive run the OS, 1 drive to be the MySQL data directory and 1 drive to be InnoDB (possibly raw partition). Why do you want to use both backends? MyISAM and InnoDB have their own index-cache (key_buffer and innodb_buffer_pool), so you might be better off with just one of them. What is the best way for me to configure RAID? Here is the kind of load I am talking about: Uptime: 1749850 Threads: 44 Questions: 1266402021 Slow queries: 16923 Opens: 162177 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries per second avg: 723.720 These figures are useless. 723q/s is nothing if the layout is simple or the dataset is small or if these are only selects. I've seen quite old servers do 7000q/s with little or no tuning. -- Per Andreas Buer -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
On Thursday 21 August 2003 2:23, Jon Drukman wrote: if you're mostly running SELECTs then i would recommend a mirrored configuration. I would say I am running about %50 SELECTS, 30% UPDATE, 20% INSERT. However I don't know how to find that out for sure. Would that affect how I set up the RAID? -Jackson jackson miller cold feet creative 615.321.3300 / 800.595.4401 [EMAIL PROTECTED] cold feet presents Emma the world's easiest email marketing Learn more @ http://www.myemma.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID or not?
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. Disk striping makes things *fast*, BUT THERE IS NO PROTECTION. If you lose a drive, you are screwed; hope you have a backup. Raid 5 spreads data out over all the disks, and keeps one for checksums or whatever. You lose only one drive to the checksum. You get better performance than mirroring or regular drive, because the data is spread out over your drives. It's not as good as disk striping, though. You get great redudancy, because if you lose one disk, the RAID still operates (in 'degraded mode') -- it's slower, but the server is still up. When you get your replacement drive in, you just hook it up, and the RAID rebuilds itself. So, all in all, RAID 5 gives fault tolerance and better performance. You can have the OS do the RAID, but that puts a lot of burden on the processor and OS. I recommend getting a RAID card, and not a cheap one, either. Plan on spending ~$500. -Original Message- From: Jackson Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:56 AM To: Jon Drukman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID or not? On Thursday 21 August 2003 2:23, Jon Drukman wrote: if you're mostly running SELECTs then i would recommend a mirrored configuration. I would say I am running about %50 SELECTS, 30% UPDATE, 20% INSERT. However I don't know how to find that out for sure. Would that affect how I set up the RAID? -Jackson jackson miller cold feet creative 615.321.3300 / 800.595.4401 [EMAIL PROTECTED] cold feet presents Emma the world's easiest email marketing Learn more @ http://www.myemma.com -- 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]
Re: RAID or not?
3Ware makes reasonably priced ATA and SATA RAID-5 cards (IDE, not SCSI). You can get hot-swappable enclosures so that when a drive fails, you swap it without shutting down the machine. We are gradually adding this hardware to our webservers, etc so that we don't have to rebuild them when a drive dies. Some good URLs: http://www.3ware.com/ These guys sell the cards at a good price, plus they sell 3rd-party enclosures (I've used them with 3ware, and they work great): http://www.pc-pitstop.com/ David. - Original Message - From: Lefevre, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jackson Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:20 AM Subject: RE: RAID or not? I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. Disk striping makes things *fast*, BUT THERE IS NO PROTECTION. If you lose a drive, you are screwed; hope you have a backup. Raid 5 spreads data out over all the disks, and keeps one for checksums or whatever. You lose only one drive to the checksum. You get better performance than mirroring or regular drive, because the data is spread out over your drives. It's not as good as disk striping, though. You get great redudancy, because if you lose one disk, the RAID still operates (in 'degraded mode') -- it's slower, but the server is still up. When you get your replacement drive in, you just hook it up, and the RAID rebuilds itself. So, all in all, RAID 5 gives fault tolerance and better performance. You can have the OS do the RAID, but that puts a lot of burden on the processor and OS. I recommend getting a RAID card, and not a cheap one, either. Plan on spending ~$500. -Original Message- From: Jackson Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:56 AM To: Jon Drukman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID or not? On Thursday 21 August 2003 2:23, Jon Drukman wrote: if you're mostly running SELECTs then i would recommend a mirrored configuration. I would say I am running about %50 SELECTS, 30% UPDATE, 20% INSERT. However I don't know how to find that out for sure. Would that affect how I set up the RAID? -Jackson jackson miller cold feet creative 615.321.3300 / 800.595.4401 [EMAIL PROTECTED] cold feet presents Emma the world's easiest email marketing Learn more @ http://www.myemma.com -- 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]
Re: RAID or not?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lefevre, Steven) writes: I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. .. You get better performance than mirroring or regular drive, because the data is spread out over your drives. It's not as good as disk striping, though. Ehh. Wrong. That is not how it works. If you have RAID5 with 4 disks, as we have here, one single write() will have the following effect. 1. The controller will have to read the whole stripe off the array. 3 reads from 3 diffrent discs. 2. Calculate the new checksum for the stripe. 3. Write the modified block back to the disk where it was changed 4. Updated the checksum This works Ok for multimedia and file storage, where you write()-call might be the size of a stripe or bigger. Then you can skip phase 1) on the list above. Ask any DBA; they will all tell you to never_ use RAID 5 for databases with dynamic content. Just don't. As for performance, seek times tend to be higher on a RAID5 array then on a mirror. The only thing which is good with RAID5 is read througput - which might be important for full table scans, but not much else. So, all in all, RAID 5 gives fault tolerance and better performance. Why do you think people use RAID1? You can have the OS do the RAID, but that puts a lot of burden on the processor and OS. CPU is almost never an issue anymore - not for database servers, anyway. The increase in CPU-usage is seldom noticable. I've seen software raid (on Linux 2.4) outrun $2000+ RAID-cards. CPUs are many times faster than the puny i960 or Strongarm CPU which are put on RAID controllers. I recommend getting a RAID card, and not a cheap one, either. Plan on spending ~$500. If you get one. Get one with a battery and write-back cache. They will give you kick-ass performance for those pesky fsync's. -- Per Andreas Buer -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
Lefevre, Steven wrote: I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. that is not true. mirroring gives you double the read speed and half the write speed. RAID5 gives you less than half the write speed. that's why i said if your database app is mostly selects go for mirroring. the OP said his app is about 50% select, so i say mirroring is a good choice. and hey, what's wrong with having a backup? the computer doesn't work any harder, it's all handled through the RAID controller card anyway. -jsd- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID or not?
In the last episode (Aug 21), Jon Drukman said: Lefevre, Steven wrote: I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card. Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder to make sure the drives are in sync. that is not true. mirroring gives you double the read speed and half the write speed. RAID5 gives you less than half the write speed. Software raid5 gives you around 1/4 the write speed, to be exact. Hardware raid5 with battery-backed cache can completely remove the penalty, by either waiting for an entire stripe of data to flush in one operation, or delaying the extra I/O operations until the disk head happens to be near that block anyway (or until the disk is otherwise idle). Make sure you max out the RAM in your raid card; it's cheap. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Thanks to everybody for the nice discussion. Just to let you know about my (not necessary final) decisions: We will upgrade our SCSI -II controller to an Ultra SCSI 160 controller (always a good idea). Next we are looking into buying a RAID-5 system from RAIDking. While we do this we hope for the best Thanks again for you kind help. Bernd = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your computer. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
RE: SCSI needed for best performance - While this is true in some cases, if you are using striping or any RAID level (RAID 5 for example) that splits reads and writes across drives, then there will be several IDE channels feeding data to the RAID card at a time. Two ATA100 IDE channels will accept and provide data faster than the PCI bus that the card is plugged into can. The result is that you can use cheap IDE drives and get the same performance as the very fastest SCSI drives. I don't think this is generally true. For database-type applications, even with multiple drives, throughput is usually limited by seeks rather than data transfer rate. One of the capacity that Scsi drives have that IDE drives don't is the ability to send multiple overlapping transfers to the drive, which can then execute them out of order. Firstly, it can do escalator seeking - sort into position on the disk so as to minimise the number of end-to-end seeks. Secondly, it can trade off short seeks against rotational latency, because it knows tha angular position of the disk at any time. I found that the second feature alone added about 25% to net performance. Alec -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
After testing a lot of different configurations (which was quite a headache), I came up with the following. First of all, for both speed and reliability, you will want SCSI. The list of reasons are quite long for SCSI, and as you are doing research on the subject, it is an obvious choice and I don't need to list them here. Get drives with 15K RPM, since disk seek time is a killer in database applications. U160 or U320 SCSI 3. With lots of cache on the drive (should be standard). I've found U160 to be sufficient, but U320 might be better for backups, etc. We do have U320 controllers now, to be ready for the future. Next, I found RAID 10 to be the best combination of redundancy and speed. It is not cheaper though. I have not tested hardware RAID (which is a shame -- it is a big hole in my experience), but use software RAID. Either way, position all the sets of mirrors such that each mirror set (2 drives) are on separate channels. This way, if your SCSI controller (or RAID controller) has a channel die, the whole array can still function (even with half of the drives down). Then stripe your (3-4) mirrors. Don't stripe too many. More sets to stripe increase performance, but syncing the rotations of many drives degrades performance. So there are diminishing returns. For our calculations, 3-4 mirrors were sufficient. Most of our RAID sets are six drives (3 stripe of 2 mirror). For one, we wanted more space and it has 8 drives (4x2). Don't forget to install spares at the same time. I like using external SCSI disk enclosures, so you can swap servers with less headache. -steve- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
What sort of throughput are you seeing in that setup? God, I can't remember anymore. I can run a test again though. If you have one you want me to run, just send it. We don't have other people's money to spend, so all our disks are U160 18GB 15K IBM. They were less than $100 each when we got them. They work great! We only care about throughput when we do a clean backup. Application performance is our measuring stick. Nothing like an FTS query on a big ass table to do a test of both simultaneously. At any rate, one server is just a replication failover. I can shut it down for a little while and do another test. Then I can post back to the list. -steve- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
---Original Message- --From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:56 AM --To: 'Bernd Jagla'; 'mysql' --Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience -- --We recently bought a kick $%#%% machine for ~10k -- --HP DL380 --2x2.8GHz Xeon --1GB RAM --5 15k scsi drives (2 RAID 1 for OS and logs/3 RAID 5 for data) --RedHat Linux Enterprise Edition 2.1 You overpaid by 5K 2 x 2.8 GHZ Xeon 4 GB of RAM 5 15K SCSI Drives ICP SCSCI RAID control card with 1 Gb of ram on it. I just bought 30 of these boxes to build out my mysql farm for close to 400-600 queries a second with 60 connections a second of mix read / writes. -- -- --This machine easily handles 200 queries/sec and never gets a load --average above 1.5. For your space requirements, you may need the HP --ML370 with 5 RAID 5 drives. An important thing to remember is that the --raid card is very fast and the more drives (to a point) you put on it, --the better, so better to have 5 smaller drives than 3 bigger drives. --The reason we use raid 5 is that 95% of our queries are selects. If --your ratio is smaller, you will want to consider RAID 1 or 10. Another --thing I recommend is to stay with the big players (IBM,HP) and stay away --from Dell which is cut rate. If you want to save money, get a white box --over dell. Also, we get it from a good salesman at cdw. His address is --[EMAIL PROTECTED] Since they are in Chicago, there is no sales tax. --Lastly, if you're looking to buy soon, HP small-business direct --(www.smb.compaq.com) is offering free shipping until June 30 (but then --you have to pay tax - basically the same amount). -- -- -- -Original Message- -- From: Bernd Jagla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:15 PM -- To: mysql -- Subject: RAID hardware suggestions/experience -- -- -- Sorry I forgot to mention: -- -- We are using IRIS on an Origion2000, 7GB memory, 8 CPUs. I -- was thinking of -- spending up to $10K. -- I also wanted the redundant data for speeding up the seeks, I -- also need to -- speed up the writes. -- -- Bernd -- -- -- -- = -- -- Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted -- with it may be -- privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under -- applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the -- intended -- recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for -- delivering this -- message to the intended recipient, you are hereby -- notified that any -- reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other -- use of this -- communication or any of its attachments is strictly -- prohibited. If -- you have received this communication in error, please notify the -- sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this -- message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your -- computer. -- -- -- -- --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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Where'd you get it. I've had bad experiences with generic machines but I'll take a peak if you send the link? There are a couple of things I didn't mention 2U Form Factor with tool-less rails Redundant Power Supply Redundant Fans (any 2 fans can go) Battery Backed RAID for full commit even on abrupt power loss dual Gbit ethernet Remote Console/Power administration without Operating System 400 MHz FSB DVD-ROM All drive are hot swap Fully supported and tested on RedHat Linux ES 2.1 (no weird hardware bugs) The last one is worth 5k alone. I've had generic machines just freeze from some weird kernel incompatibility with a raid card. With 30 machines though, you can afford to lose one. For me, with 1 or 2, I cannot and must get the best. -Original Message- From: Dathan Vance Pattishall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:39 PM To: 'Adam Nelson'; 'mysql' Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience ---Original Message- --From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:56 AM --To: 'Bernd Jagla'; 'mysql' --Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience -- --We recently bought a kick $%#%% machine for ~10k -- --HP DL380 --2x2.8GHz Xeon --1GB RAM --5 15k scsi drives (2 RAID 1 for OS and logs/3 RAID 5 for data) --RedHat Linux Enterprise Edition 2.1 You overpaid by 5K 2 x 2.8 GHZ Xeon 4 GB of RAM 5 15K SCSI Drives ICP SCSCI RAID control card with 1 Gb of ram on it. I just bought 30 of these boxes to build out my mysql farm for close to 400-600 queries a second with 60 connections a second of mix read / writes. -- -- --This machine easily handles 200 queries/sec and never gets a load --average above 1.5. For your space requirements, you may need the HP --ML370 with 5 RAID 5 drives. An important thing to remember is that the --raid card is very fast and the more drives (to a point) you put on it, --the better, so better to have 5 smaller drives than 3 bigger drives. --The reason we use raid 5 is that 95% of our queries are selects. If --your ratio is smaller, you will want to consider RAID 1 or 10. Another --thing I recommend is to stay with the big players (IBM,HP) and stay away --from Dell which is cut rate. If you want to save money, get a white box --over dell. Also, we get it from a good salesman at cdw. His address is --[EMAIL PROTECTED] Since they are in Chicago, there is no sales tax. --Lastly, if you're looking to buy soon, HP small-business direct --(www.smb.compaq.com) is offering free shipping until June 30 (but then --you have to pay tax - basically the same amount). -- -- -- -Original Message- -- From: Bernd Jagla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:15 PM -- To: mysql -- Subject: RAID hardware suggestions/experience -- -- -- Sorry I forgot to mention: -- -- We are using IRIS on an Origion2000, 7GB memory, 8 CPUs. I -- was thinking of -- spending up to $10K. -- I also wanted the redundant data for speeding up the seeks, I -- also need to -- speed up the writes. -- -- Bernd -- -- -- -- = -- -- Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted -- with it may be -- privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under -- applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the -- intended -- recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for -- delivering this -- message to the intended recipient, you are hereby -- notified that any -- reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other -- use of this -- communication or any of its attachments is strictly -- prohibited. If -- you have received this communication in error, please notify the -- sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this -- message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your -- computer. -- -- -- -- --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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
2 x 2.8 GHZ Xeon 4 GB of RAM 5 15K SCSI Drives ICP SCSCI RAID control card with 1 Gb of ram on it. I just bought 30 of these boxes to build out my mysql farm for close to 400-600 queries a second with 60 connections a second of mix read / writes. What kind of queries are you doing? Our simple dual Athlon, with software RAID and the disks I mentioned before does 3000+ queries a second. I've pushed it to 8000 before, but it got too slow for me. 60/40 read/write. -steve- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
A lot of table scans do to bitmasked column values. So SELECT * FROM search_table where AND colN 4; Such that the above query will not utilize a key. I was told at the last convention that mySQL had some good ideas on allowing indexes for bitwise (arithmetic) columns but they are not quite there yet. It's a hard problem I can only think of a way by having every possible bit in an index but then that makes the index useless. ---Original Message- --From: Steven Roussey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:59 PM --To: 'Mysql' --Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience -- -- --2 x 2.8 GHZ Xeon --4 GB of RAM --5 15K SCSI Drives --ICP SCSCI RAID control card with 1 Gb of ram on it. --I just bought 30 of these boxes to build out my mysql farm for close to --400-600 queries a second with 60 connections a second of mix read / --writes. -- -- --What kind of queries are you doing? Our simple dual Athlon, with --software RAID and the disks I mentioned before does 3000+ queries a --second. I've pushed it to 8000 before, but it got too slow for me. 60/40 --read/write. -- ---steve- -- -- --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]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
At 13:14 2003-06-17, Bernd Jagla wrote: Sorry I forgot to mention: We are using IRIS on an Origion2000, 7GB memory, 8 CPUs. I was thinking of spending up to $10K. I also wanted the redundant data for speeding up the seeks, I also need to speed up the writes. Bernd I assume You mean IRIX on O2k. If so, Your best bet is to call Your friendly snowflake integrator (oh, soory, Origins do not use snowflake anymore...), but _not_ SGI. With one possible exception: SGI Montreal or Toronto (that's in Canada, so there will be no tax), they're not too far and are used to hopping the border for support/config calls. Out of interest: which IRIX? maintenance or feature? -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
A lot of table scans do to bitmasked column values. Such that the above query will not utilize a key. That statement gave me a cold shiver up my spine. You could try an inverted index or match-cache technique, or denormalization. These type of techniques are very app specific, but can reduce things by a factor of 10 or more. (And it assumes things are properly normalized as a starting point.) None may work for you, though. Who knows. Ug. Tables scans. I don't know if I can sleep tonight. I feel for you. At least I know why you need 30 database servers. That has got to be a sight! I'd love to have such hardware at my disposal! Wow. Have some fun! -steve- -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:20:17PM -0400, Adam Nelson wrote: Where'd you get it. I've had bad experiences with generic machines but I'll take a peak if you send the link? There are a couple of things I didn't mention 2U Form Factor with tool-less rails Redundant Power Supply Redundant Fans (any 2 fans can go) Battery Backed RAID for full commit even on abrupt power loss dual Gbit ethernet Remote Console/Power administration without Operating System 400 MHz FSB DVD-ROM All drive are hot swap Fully supported and tested on RedHat Linux ES 2.1 (no weird hardware bugs) The last one is worth 5k alone. I've had generic machines just freeze from some weird kernel incompatibility with a raid card. With 30 machines though, you can afford to lose one. For me, with 1 or 2, I cannot and must get the best. Yeah, we use DL-320s, DL-360s, and DL-380s in some cases as DB servers. The 380s are quite nice, but they're not cheap either. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 4.0.13: up 15 days, processed 512,900,100 queries (372/sec. avg) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. David - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 -- 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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Tried a Promise FastTrak 100 TX2 in a Dell; RH 7.3. Miserable. Bailed on it after one month. Kerry -Original Message- From: David Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. David - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 -- 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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Im using a 3ware (which has great linux support) Escalade 7800 with 8 120GB/8MB cache ide drives in RAID 10 under Debian with 2.4.20 kernel. I guess what we need to know is what platform and how much $$ you wanna spend -Original Message- From: Bernd Jagla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mysql Subject: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your computer. -- 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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
I have heard good thing about 3Ware, but I would suggest looking at the 8500-4 in combination with Western Digital's Raptor drive (http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/index.html). The Raptor is a 10,000 RPM SATA drive which, combined with the 8500-4 SATA Raid card should give excellent performance at a great price. I would also look at Opteron based servers if you are looking for performance for a good price. Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com -Original Message- From: David Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. David - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 -- 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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
RE: SCSI needed for best performance - While this is true in some cases, if you are using striping or any RAID level (RAID 5 for example) that splits reads and writes across drives, then there will be several IDE channels feeding data to the RAID card at a time. Two ATA100 IDE channels will accept and provide data faster than the PCI bus that the card is plugged into can. The result is that you can use cheap IDE drives and get the same performance as the very fastest SCSI drives. Of course if you are running on some of the high-end server platforms from IBM, SUN, or HP then there will not be a PCI bus in the loop, and if you can afford such a server then the cost of getting the fastest SCSI drives and custom RAID hardware will not be an issue. If you are looking at this type of high-end storage and want to save some money you should check out the fiber-channel RAID solutions from Adjile Systems http://www.adjile.com as part of you comparisons. For the best price/performance/reliability for my i686 Linux system (on a HP NetServer E60 Dual Pentium II box) I went with High Point Technologies Rocket RAID 404 card and Western Digital 180 GB drives. The documentation for setting up the card for Windows and Linux Lilo booting was complete, but seriously lacking for Linux GRUB boots. I worked out the GRUB issues with help from the suse-linux-e group at http://lists.suse.com last January and February. The setup was easy once I learned what to do. Best of Luck, Grant Q -Original Message- From: Gabriel Guzman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:06 AM To: Bernd Jagla Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mysql Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Bernd, here is a good resource on the different types of RAIDs (0, 1, 10, 0+1 etc) http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html For high I/O, get a hardware RAID controller, several SCSI disks with 15,000 RPM and as much CACHE as you can afford and do RAID1. Better make sure you have a good backup plan though cause if one disk fails, you loose everything. RAID 10 or 0+1 might be a good compromise between data integrity and I/O performance. But for sheer speed, you will definitely want to go SCSI if you can afford it. RAID 5 will take a performance hit, especially on writing, I wouldn't reccomend it for what you are doing, definitely not if you will be using IDE drives... SLOW. Another idea would be to go with a disk array from a 3rd party vendor that you could attach to you DB box. Might be worth looking into at least. I've setup and maintained up to 1.5TB disk arrays in RAID 5 implementations (IDE and SCSI) and ide is definitely a slow solution for RAID5... good for backups, but not for I/O intensive applications. gabe. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
I have heard good thing about 3Ware, but I would suggest looking at the 8500-4 in combination with Western Digital's Raptor drive (http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/index.html). The Raptor is a 10,000 RPM SATA drive which, combined with the 8500-4 SATA Raid card should give excellent performance at a great price. I would also look at Opteron based servers if you are looking for performance for a good price. Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com -Original Message- From: David Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. David - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 A significant question remains for SATA: basic drive reliability. Related to that is length of time drive will remain available. A dirty secret of RAID is that when a drive goes it must be replaced you must replace it with the same drive (please..please tell me I'm wrong). So, unless you have a spare in the back you will end up replacing 3 drives (assuming Raid 5). That may be why the WD model has such low capacity compared with the normal IDE drives. Just my 2 cents worth. William R. Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer Ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27 FAX. 909-608-7061 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 09:58, David Griffiths wrote: Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. If I had to choose between the two, I would go with the 3wares. They work very well under linux. I've used their 6xxx series 4 port controllers and their 7xxx series 8 port controllers. Pretty happy with both for inexpensive IDE RAID on linux. Make sure you install the linux drivers and software so you can access the 3ware functionality like rebuilding your arrays without having to enter the cards BIOS at boot. They're no SCSI RAID controllers, but they get the job done. The promise controllers are crap (IMO) but they have come a long way in the last couple of years... they are cheap though. gabe. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Many IDE RAID cards have a setting called gigabyte-boundry. What this means is that it rounds down the capacity of the drive to the next gigabyte. A 120.3 gig drive becomes a 120 gig drive. This means that if you replace the drive with a different make/model (say a 120.5 gig drive, which will be rounded down 120 gig). The drives must be exactly the the same size. You need to turn that gigabyte boundry on unless you have a large stock of the same make/model drives. David - Original Message - From: Christopher Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Optimally, Yes, you should replace with exact same brand/model etc... but you CAN replace with a different brand/ model drive of the same amount of disk space or more. It isn't recomended (because of different seek times, cache .. etc..) but if you are carefull and do your research, you can get away with it w/o any adverse effects. -Original Message- From: William R. Mussatto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I have heard good thing about 3Ware, but I would suggest looking at the 8500-4 in combination with Western Digital's Raptor drive (http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/index.html). The Raptor is a 10,000 RPM SATA drive which, combined with the 8500-4 SATA Raid card should give excellent performance at a great price. I would also look at Opteron based servers if you are looking for performance for a good price. Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com -Original Message- From: David Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. David - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 A significant question remains for SATA: basic drive reliability. Related to that is length of time drive will remain available. A dirty secret of RAID is that when a drive goes it must be replaced you must replace it with the same drive (please..please tell me I'm wrong). So, unless you have a spare in the back you will end up replacing 3 drives (assuming Raid 5). That may be why the WD model has such low capacity compared with the normal IDE drives. Just my 2 cents worth. William R. Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer Ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27 FAX. 909-608-7061 -- 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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Optimally, Yes, you should replace with exact same brand/model etc... but you CAN replace with a different brand/ model drive of the same amount of disk space or more. It isn't recomended (because of different seek times, cache .. etc..) but if you are carefull and do your research, you can get away with it w/o any adverse effects. -Original Message- From: William R. Mussatto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I have heard good thing about 3Ware, but I would suggest looking at the 8500-4 in combination with Western Digital's Raptor drive (http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/index.html). The Raptor is a 10,000 RPM SATA drive which, combined with the 8500-4 SATA Raid card should give excellent performance at a great price. I would also look at Opteron based servers if you are looking for performance for a good price. Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com -Original Message- From: David Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000 IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good about 3Ware. David - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with RedHat Linux ES for around $4,000. At 12:25 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote: Hi there, Our databank with all tables and idices is about 130GB big. The biggest limitations we encounter are on the I/O side. Therefore we are willing to update our data storage system to a RAID system (RAID 0+1, RAID 5, or RAID 10). Has anyone experience with such RAID systems? What should we buy? From whom should we buy (We are located in New York City)? Do you have any experience you want to share? Thank you very much for your help and support! Bernd Patrick J. Shoaf, Systems Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Midmon Internet Services, LLC 100 Third Street Charleroi, PA 15022 http://www.midmon.com Phone: 724-483-2400 ext. 105 or888-638-6963 Fax: 724-489-4386 A significant question remains for SATA: basic drive reliability. Related to that is length of time drive will remain available. A dirty secret of RAID is that when a drive goes it must be replaced you must replace it with the same drive (please..please tell me I'm wrong). So, unless you have a spare in the back you will end up replacing 3 drives (assuming Raid 5). That may be why the WD model has such low capacity compared with the normal IDE drives. Just my 2 cents worth. William R. Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer Ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27 FAX. 909-608-7061 -- 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]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
To me the question of reliability is that of the drive, not the interface. I cannot see SATA itself being any more or less reliable than ATA drives. I think certain controllers will accept a new drive that has similar characteristics as long as the replacement drive is larger than the lost drive. I think the low capacity is a recognition that more performance for the price is more desirable than more capacity with the target market of this drive. After all, you don't see many 180GB SCSI drives, performance is more a concern than capacity (you can get the capacity from RAID anyway. Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com A significant question remains for SATA: basic drive reliability. Related to that is length of time drive will remain available. A dirty secret of RAID is that when a drive goes it must be replaced you must replace it with the same drive (please..please tell me I'm wrong). So, unless you have a spare in the back you will end up replacing 3 drives (assuming Raid 5). That may be why the WD model has such low capacity compared with the normal IDE drives. Just my 2 cents worth. William R. Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer Ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27 FAX. 909-608-7061 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
We recently bought a kick $%#%% machine for ~10k HP DL380 2x2.8GHz Xeon 1GB RAM 5 15k scsi drives (2 RAID 1 for OS and logs/3 RAID 5 for data) RedHat Linux Enterprise Edition 2.1 This machine easily handles 200 queries/sec and never gets a load average above 1.5. For your space requirements, you may need the HP ML370 with 5 RAID 5 drives. An important thing to remember is that the raid card is very fast and the more drives (to a point) you put on it, the better, so better to have 5 smaller drives than 3 bigger drives. The reason we use raid 5 is that 95% of our queries are selects. If your ratio is smaller, you will want to consider RAID 1 or 10. Another thing I recommend is to stay with the big players (IBM,HP) and stay away from Dell which is cut rate. If you want to save money, get a white box over dell. Also, we get it from a good salesman at cdw. His address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since they are in Chicago, there is no sales tax. Lastly, if you're looking to buy soon, HP small-business direct (www.smb.compaq.com) is offering free shipping until June 30 (but then you have to pay tax - basically the same amount). -Original Message- From: Bernd Jagla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:15 PM To: mysql Subject: RAID hardware suggestions/experience Sorry I forgot to mention: We are using IRIS on an Origion2000, 7GB memory, 8 CPUs. I was thinking of spending up to $10K. I also wanted the redundant data for speeding up the seeks, I also need to speed up the writes. Bernd = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your computer. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: raid vs splitting the database
Well, there is the ideal setup, which requires intimate knowledge of the database, lots of disks and extra administration. And then there is the easy setup. Ideally you don't want to have any hot disks which will cause contention. This requires you to place your busy tables (read or write) on separate disks so that one drive doesn't get most of the activity. You really only need to do this for your large tables. But as your system grows, it can be difficult to do this manual tuning. I don't recommend this on smaller systems and would really only recommend it on systems where the OS allows you to expand file systems or migrate them while they are in use. I know AIX can do this and I'm sure Solaris (with Veritas) and a few others can. The easy option, and the one I would recommend, is setting up a RAID using something like RAID 0 (striping) which will give you good read and write performance but no safety. Or RAID 1 (mirrored), which will give you good read performance, but poor write performance. RAID 0 and 1 are the least expensive to implement and can be done in software. RAID 5 will give you good read and write as well as safety, but takes a minimum of three disks. If you are using a hardware based RAID, then there typically is no write performance hit for mirrored drives. When striping is used (RAID 0 and 5), your data is split up into small chunks and spread across disks, so it's unlikely that you would get a hot disk. More disks will give you better performance. For optimal RAID setup you want to set the optimal stripe size. If you are dealing with large files, like graphics, you want to setup a large stripe size so that you can take advantage of read ahead settings on the drive/os. For databases, you probably want to have a small stripe size, but not smaller than the size of your largest record size. The optimal setup would be to have a stripe size that is the same size as your database record. In real life this isn't really feasible though. Striping is the easiest way to go and will give you very good performance. The other thing to watch out for is the performance of the card you have the drives hooked up to. Just like you wouldn't want to have a hot drive, you don't want to have a hot card. If you are using SCSI, you really wouldn't want to have any more that 6 drives hooked up to one card. Even if the card could theoretically handled the max output of the combined drives. There is addressing overhead, and protocol overhead, in SCSI that becomes more significant with the more drives you add. If you really want to get technical, the SCSI ID of a drive also has an affect on performance. But this is pretty minimal. If you are doing strictly mirroring, you want to have at least two cards and separate your drives between your cards so that your mirrored drives are on separate cards. That also gives you safety if a card fails. This used to be called duplexing, but I haven't heard that term used for storage in a while. Some SCSI cards do have more than one independent bus, this would also work for mirroring. On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 04:26 PM, Gary Traffanstedt wrote: sql, query I have a dilemma and maybe you can help. I'm wanting to improve my disk performance and I'm wondering if I should go with Raid 10 or if I should simply mirror the drives so that I have redundancy and then put some of my tables on one drive and some on the other. Or the third option is to put the tables on one drive and the logs on another drive. Ultimately, what is going to give me the best performance? Should I use 3 drives (mirrored so 6 actual drives) and put half of the tables on drive 1, half on drive 2, and logs on drive 3? TIA, Gary - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail mysql-unsubscribe- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid vs splitting the database
Brent Baisley wrote: Well, there is the ideal setup, which requires intimate knowledge of the database, lots of disks and extra administration. And then there is the easy setup. Ideally you don't want to have any hot disks which will cause contention. This requires you to place your busy tables (read or write) on separate disks so that one drive doesn't get most of the activity. You really only need to do this for your large tables. But as your system grows, it can be difficult to do this manual tuning. I don't recommend this on smaller systems and would really only recommend it on systems where the OS allows you to expand file systems or migrate them while they are in use. I know AIX can do this and I'm sure Solaris (with Veritas) and a few others can. The easy option, and the one I would recommend, is setting up a RAID using something like RAID 0 (striping) which will give you good read and write performance but no safety. Or RAID 1 (mirrored), which will give you good read performance, but poor write performance. RAID 0 and 1 are the least expensive to implement and can be done in software. RAID 5 will give you good read and write as well as safety, but takes a minimum of three disks. If you are using a hardware based RAID, then there typically is no write performance hit for mirrored drives. When striping is used (RAID 0 and 5), your data is split up into small chunks and spread across disks, so it's unlikely that you would get a hot disk. More disks will give you better performance. For optimal RAID setup you want to set the optimal stripe size. If you are dealing with large files, like graphics, you want to setup a large stripe size so that you can take advantage of read ahead settings on the drive/os. For databases, you probably want to have a small stripe size, but not smaller than the size of your largest record size. The optimal setup would be to have a stripe size that is the same size as your database record. In real life this isn't really feasible though. Striping is the easiest way to go and will give you very good performance. The other thing to watch out for is the performance of the card you have the drives hooked up to. Just like you wouldn't want to have a hot drive, you don't want to have a hot card. If you are using SCSI, you really wouldn't want to have any more that 6 drives hooked up to one card. Even if the card could theoretically handled the max output of the combined drives. There is addressing overhead, and protocol overhead, in SCSI that becomes more significant with the more drives you add. If you really want to get technical, the SCSI ID of a drive also has an affect on performance. But this is pretty minimal. If you are doing strictly mirroring, you want to have at least two cards and separate your drives between your cards so that your mirrored drives are on separate cards. That also gives you safety if a card fails. This used to be called duplexing, but I haven't heard that term used for storage in a while. Some SCSI cards do have more than one independent bus, this would also work for mirroring. On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 04:26 PM, Gary Traffanstedt wrote: sql, query I have a dilemma and maybe you can help. I'm wanting to improve my disk performance and I'm wondering if I should go with Raid 10 or if I should simply mirror the drives so that I have redundancy and then put some of my tables on one drive and some on the other. Or the third option is to put the tables on one drive and the logs on another drive. Ultimately, what is going to give me the best performance? Should I use 3 drives (mirrored so 6 actual drives) and put half of the tables on drive 1, half on drive 2, and logs on drive 3? TIA, Gary - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail mysql-unsubscribe- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php Brent, You mentioned placing the busy tables on seperate disks. I didn't think in mysql that you could specify where the datafiles foreach tablelive. I know you could symlink (linux/unix) the files, but I remember seeing something about
RE: raid vs splitting the database
Hi, In my experience (assuming that you are using mysql for all of these operations) the best way is to separate your tables into read-heavy and write heavy and put each into separate databases. Put the write-heavy logs database onto a separate disk/spindle and use delayed inserts (so that the apps can carry on regardless). With the read-heavy tables, use raid and/or use heap tables and serve as much from memory as possible to get max performance. Hardcore Option: If you have heavy logging to a few tables lots of reads (but not many updates to those tables you're reading from) from lots of other tables (as I do..) use replication over a few machines for the read-heavy tables, do the all selects from there and also write the logs to those machines (but don't replicate the logs) then each day/month (do this at a quiet time...whenever/whatever suits you) dump all the logs to another machine for analysing purposes. This effects a rollover of logs and can be quite useful if you're writing lot's of logtables each day. Hope this helped, Andrew Sql,query -Original Message- From: Gary Traffanstedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2002 21:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: raid vs splitting the database sql, query I have a dilemma and maybe you can help. I'm wanting to improve my disk performance and I'm wondering if I should go with Raid 10 or if I should simply mirror the drives so that I have redundancy and then put some of my tables on one drive and some on the other. Or the third option is to put the tables on one drive and the logs on another drive. Ultimately, what is going to give me the best performance? Should I use 3 drives (mirrored so 6 actual drives) and put half of the tables on drive 1, half on drive 2, and logs on drive 3? TIA, Gary - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: RAID
RAID --with-raid splits tables up to stop size problems or put one table on more than one disk. So is not required for hardware raid. Simon -Original Message- From: Ismael Touama [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 10:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RAID Hi, This is my first post... I'm on redhat 7.2, using apache 1.3.23 (patched) on a PowerEdge 2500 in RAID 1 and I want to install MySQL 3.23.51... Must I set to configure the --with-raid ? Do you have good link for documentation ? I reach for in google...i'm late... thanx bbsc ism - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: RAID
Ok so it's to emulate it following you explanation. That's OK, I enter the line (without this option). thx bbsc ism -Message d'origine- De : Simon Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : mardi 9 juillet 2002 11:42 À : 'Ismael Touama'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: RAID RAID --with-raid splits tables up to stop size problems or put one table on more than one disk. So is not required for hardware raid. Simon -Original Message- From: Ismael Touama [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 10:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RAID Hi, This is my first post... I'm on redhat 7.2, using apache 1.3.23 (patched) on a PowerEdge 2500 in RAID 1 and I want to install MySQL 3.23.51... Must I set to configure the --with-raid ? Do you have good link for documentation ? I reach for in google...i'm late... thanx bbsc ism - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID
* Ismael Touama This is my first post... I'm on redhat 7.2, using apache 1.3.23 (patched) on a PowerEdge 2500 in RAID 1 and I want to install MySQL 3.23.51... Must I set to configure the --with-raid ? No, this is only if you need support for tables with file size bigger than your OS can support. See the section on RAID_TYPE on this page: URL: http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/R/CREATE_TABLE.html Do you have good link for documentation ? URL: http://www.mysql.com/doc/ -- Roger - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID
ismaeel Do you have good link for documentation ? http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/o/Configuring_MySQL.html good luck toby . _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 11:00:35AM +0500, Rizwan Majeed wrote: is there a Raid Mode in MySQL.. I found a RAID_TYPE switch but dont know much about it. Here's what I recently wrote about RAID tables. Try to ignore the funny markup. :-) ---snip--- PRAID tables are just like MyISAM tables except that the data file is split into several data files. Writes to the table are striped across the data files, much like a hardware RAID controller might. This can be helpful in two circumstances. If you have an operating system which limits file sizes to 2GB or 4GB but you need larger tables, using RAID will get you past the limit. If you're have a table which is read from and written to very frequently, you might achieve better performance by storing each of the RAID files on a separate physical disk. PTo create a RAID table, you must supply some additional options at table creation time: C CREATE TABLE mytable ( aINTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, bCHAR(18) NOT NULL ) RAID_TYPE = STRIPED RAID_CHUNKS = 4 RAID_CHUNKSIZE = 16 PThe CRAID_TYPE option, while required, must be CSTRIPED or CRAID0 which are synonymous with each other. The CRAID_CHUNKS parameter tells MySQL how many data files to break the table into. And the CRAID_CHUNKSIZE specifies how many kilobytes of data MySQL will write in each file before moving to the next. PIn the previous example, MySQL would create four sub-directories named C00, C01, C02, and C03 in which it would store a file named Cmytable.MYD. When writing data to the table, it would write 16KB of data to one file and then move to the next one. Once created, RAID tables are transparent. You can use them just as you would normal MyISAM tables. PWith the availability of inexpensive RAID controllers and the software RAID features of some operating systems, there isn't much need for using RAID tables in MySQL. ---snip--- Does that answer your question a bit? Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936 MySQL 3.23.47-max: up 38 days, processed 1,148,741,462 queries (342/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: RAID
-Original Message- From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Here's what I recently wrote about RAID tables. Try to ignore the funny markup. :-) snip lots of usefull stuff. Does that answer your question a bit? Thanks Jeremy, I was a bit unsure as to RAID tables in MySQL, but that you submitted was very usefull. Thanks again. Greg Cope Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936 MySQL 3.23.47-max: up 38 days, processed 1,148,741,462 queries (342/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT This message and any attachment has been virus checked by the PGRD Sandwich Data Centre. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 04:04:48PM +0500, Rizwan Majeed wrote: Can somebody give me an intro into using MySQL over RAID array or direct me to a good resource on the net. I also want to know what type of tables support RAID. Is it only MyISAM tables? If you're talking about a RAID disk controller (or software RAID of some sort), all table types work fine. MySQL is ignorant of the underlying storage--as long as it acts like a disk. :-) Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936 MySQL 3.23.47-max: up 33 days, processed 1,064,456,827 queries (371/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID
is there a Raid Mode in MySQL.. I found a RAID_TYPE switch but dont know much about it. - Original Message - From: Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rizwan Majeed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:51 PM Subject: Re: RAID On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 04:04:48PM +0500, Rizwan Majeed wrote: Can somebody give me an intro into using MySQL over RAID array or direct me to a good resource on the net. I also want to know what type of tables support RAID. Is it only MyISAM tables? If you're talking about a RAID disk controller (or software RAID of some sort), all table types work fine. MySQL is ignorant of the underlying storage--as long as it acts like a disk. :-) Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936 MySQL 3.23.47-max: up 33 days, processed 1,064,456,827 queries (371/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID RAID_CHUNKS speed differences
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:29:27 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny used a few recycled electrons to form: | On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:14:58PM -0600, Michael Brunson wrote: | | Has anyone ran any benchmarks as to what affect different number of | RAID_CHUNKS has on speed? | | The more chunks, the slower your retrieval speed is likely to be. But | how many chunks do you really need? More than a few? The .MYD right now is right at 2G, so 2 chunks would work. We would need to rebuild again once the combined size hits 4G. I could see the table growing, but probably not more than another 10 million rows in the next year. (It's at 30M now.) | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | 'foo%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | |56033 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.33 sec) | | Is there an index on sld? It would seem so. If that's the case, | the test is relatively meaningless. The index will be used to answer | the query, not the raid'ed data files. Yes, sld is the primary key for the table. In fact, sld is the only column in the table. | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | '%foo%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 151460 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (2 min 3.70 sec) | | Same here. | | If you have a lot of %foo% queries, you probably want to look at | fulltext indexing. Any ideas why the times would jump up for 3 chunks and back down for 5 and 15? Anyone think this might be more of a memory/swap issue? Thanks for any input, Michael - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID RAID_CHUNKS speed differences
Here is the same data in a little easy format. Raid Chunks count like %like % % 10.00 sec 0.33 sec 2 min 3.70 sec 30.00 sec 0.39 sec 14 min 59.83 sec 50.00 sec 0.38 sec 6 min 44.92 sec 15 0.00 sec 0.39 sec 6 min 33.72 sec Thanks, Michael -- Michael Brunson 504.473.6643 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 83163789 ? Special Projects Programming Manager ? --- Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. --- www.intercosmos.comwww.directnic.com On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:14:58 -0600, Michael Brunson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Has anyone ran any benchmarks as to what affect | different number of RAID_CHUNKS has on speed? | | Also, what affect does the RAID_CHUNKSIZE have? | | Here are a few results I've gotten all with the default | CHUCKSIZE. | | - | No RAID Tables (yes, fewer rows.. hit the 2G limit) | | mysql select count(*) from names; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 30304640 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.00 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | 'sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | |56033 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.33 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | '%sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 151460 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (2 min 3.70 sec) | | - | RAID_CHUNKS=3 | | mysql select count(*) from names; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 30352536 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.00 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | 'sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | |55989 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.39 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | '%sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 151422 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (14 min 59.83 sec) | | - | RAID_CHUNKS=5 | | mysql select count(*) from names; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 30352536 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.00 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | 'sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | |55989 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.38 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | '%sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 151422 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (6 min 44.92 sec) | | | - | RAID_CHUNKS=15 | mysql select count(*) from names; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 30352536 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.00 sec) | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | 'sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | |55989 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (0.39 sec) | | | mysql select count(*) from names where sld like | '%sex%'; | +--+ | | count(*) | | +--+ | | 151422 | | +--+ | 1 row in set (6 min 33.72 sec) | | - | | | This is running on a pretty wimpy box, but all ran | several times so I was able to make sure the server was | fully up. The box is a 750 PIII with 756M of RAM, | running linux and the 3.23.44 version of mysql. | | Any suggestions would be great. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID RAID_CHUNKS speed differences
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:14:58PM -0600, Michael Brunson wrote: Has anyone ran any benchmarks as to what affect different number of RAID_CHUNKS has on speed? The more chunks, the slower your retrieval speed is likely to be. But how many chunks do you really need? More than a few? mysql select count(*) from names; +--+ | count(*) | +--+ | 30304640 | +--+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) mysql select count(*) from names where sld like 'sex%'; +--+ | count(*) | +--+ |56033 | +--+ 1 row in set (0.33 sec) Is there an index on sld? It would seem so. If that's the case, the test is relatively meaningless. The index will be used to answer the query, not the raid'ed data files. mysql select count(*) from names where sld like '%sex%'; +--+ | count(*) | +--+ | 151460 | +--+ 1 row in set (2 min 3.70 sec) Same here. If you have a lot of %foo% queries, you probably want to look at fulltext indexing. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936 MySQL 3.23.41-max: up 71 days, processed 1,557,459,503 queries (253/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: RAID advice : (fwd)
Sorry for the delayed reply.. the list marked my reply as spam ! ;) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:48:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Seth Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wouter de Jong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID advice : Let's say your OS crashes (Linux...bad libraries for example, that are not resolvable, for example :), then you'll have to format all your disks including your \ data to replace the OS. I'm missing the link here between OS crashing and having to reinitalize and rebuild the RAID array. Ultimately, you want to avoid single points of failure. Having the OS on a none redundant disk seems like a pretty big one. If that disk goes bad (a much higher probability than linux crashing and destroying your disks in a flaming explosion) then your database is down. If it's on the RAID array then you swap a new disk in and have zero downtime (assuming you can hot swap). You could certainly keep your / partition seperate.. this is generally a good idea anyways; but, I see no advantage to keeping the OS off the RAID array. --- Seth Northrop Manager of Information Technology Reflectivity, Inc. 3910 Freedom Circle, Suite 103 Santa Clara, CA 95054 voice: 408-970-8881 x147 fax:408-970-8840 http://www.reflectivity.com/ - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid tables
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 04:49:58AM +0200, Tonu Samuel wrote: On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jeremy Zawodny wrote: I'd use a combination of my.cnf entries and SQL. The my.cnf entry (or entries) woudl list the available directories, like others have suggested. Then, using SQL, you could: * Mark a table to be spread out at creation time vis some attribute. * Possibly do it after the fact using ALTER TABLE. Maybe you are right. I am thinking about security and this is a not the best idea if we introduce a way to write data anywhere on the disks on user request. Indeed. Meanwhile any change in cnf file requires restart of MySQL which is not always possible :(. A while back (at last year's database summit), Monty made some rumblings about maybe making it possible to modify many (most?) of the server variables without an actual restart. Is that that on the horizon for MySQL 4.x, or did it become more difficult that originally thought? If it does happen, I'll start working on the MySQL self-tuning add-on so that folks don't have to play with their my.cnf files as much... Really. I think it'd be fun to build and VERY useful. Then MSSQL wouldn't be the only [advertised] self-tuning database server in the market. :-) Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878Fax: (408) 349-5454Cell: (408) 439-9951 MySQL 3.23.29: up 2 days, processed 20,171,403 queries (79/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid tables
Isn't this something that RAID O does for you on a larger scale anyway? I would expect that most would have some sort of raid on their mutliple drive system. On Monday 18 June 2001 01:52 am, you wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:48:04PM -0700, Jamie Krasnoo wrote: Is there a way to tell MySQL to automatically spread its tables over a number of disks without going through the trouble of symbolic linking the chunks to the different disks? There isn't yet, no. It'd certainly be a nice addition, though, wouldn't it? Jeremy - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid tables
Hi Samuel I would do this in sql. I thinks this would be much more convenient to administrate. It would be great if you would see these informations also in with the command eg: show database storage and you can see as return, where the files are located. Thanks Philip On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:13:50 +0200 (CEST) Tonu Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jamie Krasnoo wrote: Yes. It definitely would. I didn't know Yahoo uses MySQL. What would be great for an interim is if a script could determine the space available and suggest the settings to create the table. I see that by setting RAID_CHUNKS you could tell how many directories MySQL should make. The script could evenly distribute those directories and make the links and directories for MySQL. Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:53 PM To: Jamie Krasnoo Cc: MySQL Subject: Re: raid tables On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:48:04PM -0700, Jamie Krasnoo wrote: Is there a way to tell MySQL to automatically spread its tables over a number of disks without going through the trouble of symbolic linking the chunks to the different disks? There isn't yet, no. It'd certainly be a nice addition, though, wouldn't it? As author of this RAID code I would like to know, how did you see this in your mind: - As MySQL command DISTRIBUTE TABLES ? - As some kind of external script? - Other way? I would like to implement this feature but currently I do not see an smooth way to do it. Maybe something like LINK RAID DIR 1 to /mnt/bigdisk ? -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/ __ ___ ___ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ /Mr. Tonu Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Security Administrator /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Hong Kong, China ___/ www.mysql.com - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php -- Besten Dank Philip Markwalder == Markwalder Philip Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trivadis AG Kanalstrasse 5 CH-8152 Glattbrugg Tel.: +41- 1-808 70 20 Fax : +41- 1-808 70 21 Mobile: +41-79-445 77 87 http://www.trivadis.com == - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid tables
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:56:32AM -0700, Jamie Krasnoo wrote: [mysqld] datadir=/data1;/data2;/data3 - or - datadir=/data1:/data2:/data3 As it stands now, both will produce an error and MySQL will not start. Other ways could be like: RAID_DIRS=/data1:/data2:/data3 Well, I'll throw my thoughts in as well... I'd use a combination of my.cnf entries and SQL. The my.cnf entry (or entries) woudl list the available directories, like others have suggested. Then, using SQL, you could: * Mark a table to be spread out at creation time vis some attribute. * Possibly do it after the fact using ALTER TABLE. As for the exact syntax, I don't know what might be best. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878Fax: (408) 349-5454Cell: (408) 439-9951 MySQL 3.23.29: up 2 days, processed 16,991,404 queries (79/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid tables
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jeremy Zawodny wrote: I'd use a combination of my.cnf entries and SQL. The my.cnf entry (or entries) woudl list the available directories, like others have suggested. Then, using SQL, you could: * Mark a table to be spread out at creation time vis some attribute. * Possibly do it after the fact using ALTER TABLE. Maybe you are right. I am thinking about security and this is a not the best idea if we introduce a way to write data anywhere on the disks on user request. This can make MySQL as most used cracking tool on the web ;). Meanwhile any change in cnf file requires restart of MySQL which is not always possible :(. -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/ __ ___ ___ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ /Mr. Tonu Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Security Administrator /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Hong Kong, China ___/ www.mysql.com - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: raid tables doesnt seem to split files.
Hi Firdaus! On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Firdaus Mah wrote: Hi Jerome, Heh... I'm already doomed. I'ved just inserted 32 million records and its stopped at 2GB even using on reiserfs. I'ved not checked the detail or experience in Postgress development. Does it do stripping as well ie breaking up tables and index file. It is not reiserfs which is limiting you to 2GB (reiserfs is unsigned and should limit you to 4GB), however the VFS layer is only signed so it will not communicate the extra bit to reiserfs so that it will access 2GB. I suspect that if you were to apply the LFS patches it will start working, but I've never done it on a reiserfs partition. My conclusion is that until this moment, MySQL is suitable for small to medium databases. Not true, I have MySQL running on a Alpha and have none of these limitations =) -Myron firdaus Jerome Abela wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 12:51:50PM +0800, Firdaus Mah wrote: this is how i'ved created create table test (field char(70) not null primary key) RAID_TYPE=STRIPED RAID_CHUNKS=1024 RAID_CHUNKSIZE=1024; This only works if mysqld was compiled with the --with-raid option. You can check this by grepping 'CONFIGURE_LINE=' from mysqlbug script. Otherwise, the RAID option to CREATE is silently ignored. Note that only the data file (MYD) is stripped. If your index becomes too big, you are doomed. Jerome. -- - Please check "http://www.mysql.com/documentation/manual.php" before posting. To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have a broken mail client that cannot send a message to the above address (Microsoft Outlook), you can use: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php Emanuel.exe - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: raid tables doesnt seem to split files.
RAID tables works fine for me. I don't know which OS you are running, i got it to work with a linux box like this: 1. Upgrade to the 2.4 linux kernel(Or patch an older kernel with the LFS patch) 2. Recompile mysql 3.23 with the --with-raid configure option (the precompiled binaries doesn't seem to have this feature compiled in). 3. Create a RAID table like the manual describes. Sincerely, Christian. btw: I am using ext2, but it should work the same with reiserfs. -Original Message- From: funky gao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:41 PM To: Firdaus Mah Cc: Jerome Abela; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: raid tables doesnt seem to split files. Hi Firdaus! On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Firdaus Mah wrote: Hi Jerome, Heh... I'm already doomed. I'ved just inserted 32 million records and its stopped at 2GB even using on reiserfs. I'ved not checked the detail or experience in Postgress development. Does it do stripping as well ie breaking up tables and index file. It is not reiserfs which is limiting you to 2GB (reiserfs is unsigned and should limit you to 4GB), however the VFS layer is only signed so it will not communicate the extra bit to reiserfs so that it will access 2GB. I suspect that if you were to apply the LFS patches it will start working, but I've never done it on a reiserfs partition. My conclusion is that until this moment, MySQL is suitable for small to medium databases. Not true, I have MySQL running on a Alpha and have none of these limitations =) -Myron firdaus Jerome Abela wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 12:51:50PM +0800, Firdaus Mah wrote: this is how i'ved created create table test (field char(70) not null primary key) RAID_TYPE=STRIPED RAID_CHUNKS=1024 RAID_CHUNKSIZE=1024; This only works if mysqld was compiled with the --with-raid option. You can check this by grepping 'CONFIGURE_LINE=' from mysqlbug script. Otherwise, the RAID option to CREATE is silently ignored. Note that only the data file (MYD) is stripped. If your index becomes too big, you are doomed. Jerome. -- - Please check "http://www.mysql.com/documentation/manual.php" before posting. To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have a broken mail client that cannot send a message to the above address (Microsoft Outlook), you can use: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php VIGILANTe.com NOTICE - AUTOMATICALLY INSERTED The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily the Company. If you receive this transmission in error, please email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], including a copy of this message. Please then delete this email and destroy any copies of it. DISCLAIMER END - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
