It's been about a year since I've played with MySQL Cluster at all. I hope the stability
and performance have improved a lot. We tested a 50/50 read/write load on it. Performance
was a lot poorer than InnoDB at the time.
-J
________________________________
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:adamtdixon@stripped]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:41 PM
To: Jason Williams
Cc: cluster@stripped
Subject: Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?
Ill definatly be looking to upgrade to 5.1 when stable for the disk based clustering
feature. The manual says;
Support for disk-based records: Records on disk will be supported. Indexed fields
including the primary key hash index must still be stored in RAM but all other fields can
be on disk.
Which is totally unclear as to exactly how it will work. eg is it whole tables only on
disk, partitions of tables etc. I wonder if someone could provide a more detailed
description on how it will work.
Adam
On 11/11/05, Jason Williams <williamsjj@stripped> wrote:
Hello,
I haven't heard in awhile how disk-based storage (as opposed to in-memory) was
progressing for MySQL Cluster? Is it still on track for 5.1?
-J
--
MySQL Cluster Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/cluster
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/cluster?unsub=1
<http://lists.mysql.com/cluster?unsub=1
!SIG:4373cc97108261766743382!
