On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:06:54PM -0500, Ledet, Mike wrote:
> I tried your TOP suggestion but didn't see anything out of the ordinary.
> Swap size was constant (6400 or so) and didn't increase or decrease under
> load.
Familiarize yourself with vmstat if you aren't already and then run
`vmstat 1`
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ledet, Mike wrote:
| I'm running Mysql 3.23.52 on a Redhat 8.0 installation booting to Gnome.
| The machine is a dual AMD 1800, 1 gig of ram, one Ultra ATA IDE drive, and 2
| 18 gig scsi 10,000 RPM drives on a RAID controller running Raid 0.
|
| I've g
>From: DELETED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY
[Four original lines and SEVERAL HUNDRED quoted lines deleted]
PLEASE folk, trim up your quotes a bit!
Nothing spells "newbie" so much as mindlessly including everything anyone has ever
written on a topic. And when two of you go at it with each other, it's e
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:18:26PM -0500, Adam Nelson wrote:
>
> Don't let this list fool you. SQL Server is a very good product.
> It is far superior to Mysql in every way except cost and the fact
> that it doesn't run on unix.
This smells a lot like flaim bait on a MySQL list...
Jeremy
--
Jer
re on wasted people time than I
would on licenses.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:26 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Go for it. Whatever works
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: 'Adam Nelson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
>
>
> Well, I've got an MSDN subscription so I have access to a
> legal copy.. the
> non-unix thing is a downside but the
g that way.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:18 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Don't let this list fool you. SQL Server is a very good product. It is
5:12 PM
> To: 'Adam Nelson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
>
>
> Actually it is hardware Raid 0, not software. I knew about
> the safety issue
> but I had been told that from a performance stand-point that
> Raid 0 was
dam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:35 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
The first thing I would do is toss the ultra ata drive and just use the
scsi drives running raid1, raid0 just isn't saf
Good question... I have no idea. I'll change it to 4.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:36 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Oh, and wha
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:37 PM
To: Ledet, Mike; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Hi Mike,
i'm a newbie in optimizing the inner structure of a db - so i stick to the
os-part where i might have a vague clue ;-)
did you take a look at the memory / sw
Oh, and what's up with the thread_concurrency being 6? That doesn't
make any sense unless you have a tri-processor setup.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ledet, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Slow performanc
The first thing I would do is toss the ultra ata drive and just use the
scsi drives running raid1, raid0 just isn't safe and hardware raid1 is
much faster than you would think. This may seem counter-intuitive, but
there are all sorts of bus issues that could be interfering. You may
very well have
Hi Mike,
i'm a newbie in optimizing the inner structure of a db - so i stick to the
os-part where i might have a vague clue ;-)
did you take a look at the memory / swap-space mysqld used when doing the
query?
(maybe use TOP (add swap to the view by hitting "f" and then "o"), look at
the swapspace
14 matches
Mail list logo
