Richard F. Rebel wrote:
> Thanks Jonas,
>
> Are the storage requirements switching between innodb table spaces and
> NDB spaces going to change? I know when I went from myisam to innodb
> our requirements nearly doubled. Might by chance the requirements
> decrease with NDB?
Sorry to say, but I don't know.
You could always try (with a small database).
/Jonas
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:25, Jonas Oreland wrote:
>
>>Richard F. Rebel wrote:
>>
>>>I recently joined the list to ask a similar question.
>>>
>>>I currently store about 7 billion rows in about 400GB of InnoDB table
>>>space, we use the existing mysql replication to replicate to another
>>>system.
>>>
>>>My question is, does mysql cluster keep all data in RAM? Thusly my
>>>cluster set up would require servers totally 400GB of ram, or maybe even
>>>800GB if I want the system to have two copies of everything for
>>>redundancy? It's around 10k for a 1U dual proc system with 16 gigs, so
>>>I am hoping I have the wrong end of the stick...
>>>
>>>I read the available documentation, I can't seem to find clear sizing
>>>information. Any help is appreciated.
>>
>>Currently the cluster keeps _all_ data in RAM.
>>We are however working on storing data on disk aswell.
>>Hopefully there will be something ready this fall/winter.
>>
>>/Jonas
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 08:05, "Thomas Böhme" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I currently have a MySQL DB running with about 2 billion records in
>>>>different MyISAM tables. These tables use a disk space of 157 GB data.
>>>>
>>>>As I understood the concept of MySQL Cluster, it keeps all information in
>>>>memory. To use it for my database, this would mean that I need a lot of
>>>>machines which have together more than 157 GB RAM, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is there a chance for me to get a cluster running with just a few nodes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>Thomas Böhme
