List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Mike Ledet Date:December 4 2002 10:22pm
Subject:RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
View as plain text  
Well, I've got an MSDN subscription so I have access to a legal copy.. the
non-unix thing is a downside but there are number of scp command line
utilities for Windoze that I can use to move the data back and forth as
needed....

I'm seriously thinking of biting the bullet and going that way.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:anelson@stripped]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:18 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; mysql@stripped
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
far superior to Mysql in every way except cost and the fact that it
doesn't run on unix.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ledet, Mike [mailto:MLedet@stripped] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:12 PM
> To: 'Adam Nelson'; mysql@stripped
> 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 the
> fastest.
> 
> I've watched the disk activity on the IDE drive and there is 
> next to none,
> but I guess it's possible something is going on there.
> 
> Gnome is because linux is very new to me... I found the GUI to be
> comfortable coming from a Windoze world.  Since I first 
> installed I've had a
> crash course in doing it from the command line (I'm managing 
> a web and mail
> server as well) so at some point I could probably undo it.  
> 
> I'll try the variables when I get a chance.
> 
> Just as an aside I had a friend running SQL Server on a 2000 
> box that is a
> pretty similar configuration... he added the same 3 columns 
> to a table with
> 5 keys and 3 times as many columns in less than 2 minutes.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Nelson [mailto:anelson@stripped]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:35 PM
> To: 'Ledet, Mike'; mysql@stripped
> 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 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 more logging going on on the ata drive than you think.
> 
> Second, do not install X or gnome at all.  What's the point?
> 
> Third, look at these variables (although I doubt they will help much):
> 
> set-variable = table_cache=256
> set-variable = tmp_table_size=256M
> 
> If this doesn't work, get in touch.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ledet, Mike [mailto:MLedet@stripped] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:01 AM
> > To: 'mysql@stripped'
> > Subject: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
> > 
> > 
> > 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 got everything except /db on the IDE drive, /db is the 
> > only thing on
> > the raid array.
> > 
> > I've got a couple of smallish tables and one larger table 
> > with about 7 gigs
> > of data.  The larger table is a fixed row format table with 
> > each row being
> > 462 bytes wide.  I have a primary auto increment int column 
> > and a unique
> > index on a varchar 60.  Pack keys is off, delayed key writes on.
> > 
> > With this kind of hardware I was expecting pretty good 
> > performance, but I
> > haven't seen it yet.  I finally decided something was wrong 
> > when I had to
> > run an alter table on the 7 gig table, adding 3 columns, a 
> > varchar 12, a
> > varchar 50, and a datetime columm.... and it took over 10 
> > HOURS to complete.
> > 
> > That seems way too slow to me...
> > 
> > I've included relevant portions (the uncommented portions) 
> > from my.cnf, the
> > OS installation was fairly vanilla, using defaults for just about
> > everything.  The file system is ext3.
> > 
> > Any suggestions or things I haven't included that you need?  
> > Sorry if I'm
> > doing something really stupid here... relatively new to Linux 
> > after a lot of
> > years of windoze.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > ********** my.cnf *************
> > 
> > [mysqld]
> > port            = 3306
> > socket          = /var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock
> > datadir         = /db/mysql
> > skip-locking
> > set-variable    = key_buffer=500M
> > set-variable    = max_allowed_packet=2M
> > set-variable    = table_cache=512
> > set-variable    = sort_buffer=22M
> > set-variable    = record_buffer=22M
> > set-variable    = thread_cache=8
> > # Try number of CPU's*2 for thread_concurrency
> > set-variable    = thread_concurrency=6
> > set-variable    = myisam_sort_buffer_size=64M
> > log-bin
> > server-id       = 0
> > tmpdir          = /tmp/
> > [mysqldump]
> > quick
> > set-variable    = max_allowed_packet=16M
> > 
> > [mysql]
> > no-auto-rehash
> > # Remove the next comment character if you are not familiar with SQL
> > #safe-updates
> > 
> > [isamchk]
> > set-variable    = key_buffer=500M
> > set-variable    = sort_buffer=8M
> > set-variable    = read_buffer=10M
> > set-variable    = write_buffer=30M
> > 
> > [myisamchk]
> > set-variable    = key_buffer=500M
> > set-variable    = sort_buffer=8M
> > set-variable    = read_buffer=10M
> > set-variable    = write_buffer=30M
> > [mysqlhotcopy]
> > interactive-timeout
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
Thread
Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mike Ledet4 Dec
  • Re: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Nikolas Samios4 Dec
  • RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Adam Nelson4 Dec
  • RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Adam Nelson4 Dec
  • Re: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mirek Novak5 Dec
RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mike Ledet4 Dec
  • Re: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Michael T. Babcock5 Dec
RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mike Ledet4 Dec
RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mike Ledet4 Dec
  • RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Adam Nelson4 Dec
    • Re: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Jeremy Zawodny5 Dec
RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mike Ledet4 Dec
  • RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Adam Nelson4 Dec
RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Mike Ledet4 Dec
RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0Jan Steinman5 Dec