List:Cluster« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Devananda Date:August 31 2004 8:08pm
Subject:Re: Database Storage Capacity. (addendum)
View as plain text  
Devananda wrote:

> FYI, we just looked into putting a 75-100GB table into the cluster, but 
> figured out that we can house the same table by load balancing 
> traditional InnoDB databases across ~4 servers, rather than across ~16 
> with the cluster.

Realized that I didn't mention something which is imporant here - this 
table, though large, doens't handle more than 6,000 queries / second. If 
it needed to handle much more than that, we would probably need to put 
it into a cluster since we seem to be pushing our qps limit with it 
right now.
Thread
Database Storage Capacity.Faraz Khan30 Aug
  • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Olivier Kaloudoff30 Aug
    • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Mikael Ronström30 Aug
      • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Faraz Khan30 Aug
        • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Olivier Kaloudoff30 Aug
        • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Devananda31 Aug
          • Re: Database Storage Capacity. (addendum)Devananda31 Aug
          • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Clint Byrum31 Aug
          • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Faraz Khan1 Sep
            • Re: Database Storage Capacity.John David Duncan1 Sep
              • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Faraz Khan1 Sep
          • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Mikael Ronström1 Sep
            • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Devananda2 Sep
            • Re: Database Storage Capacity.Douglas K. Fischer4 Sep
      • New TransportSundeep Narravula31 Aug
        • Re: New TransportTomas Ulin31 Aug
          • Re: New TransportMikael Ronström31 Aug
            • Re: New TransportSundeep Narravula31 Aug