List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Mike Ledet Date:December 4 2002 10:34pm
Subject:RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
View as plain text  
Yeah, I know.  At this point we are still in 'proof of concept mode'.  At
the point we decide to go live I'll buy a copy. I really don't need more
than 2-3 concurrent connections so it shouldn't set me back too much.
Bottom line is I'm probably 'spending' more on wasted people time than I
would on licenses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:anelson@stripped]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:26 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; mysql@stripped
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0


Go for it.  Whatever works works.

Caveat, MSDN is not an actual license for production use, only
development.  If you ever get audited and are using it on a production
machine, you will have to pay the license.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ledet, Mike [mailto:MLedet@stripped] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: 'Adam Nelson'; mysql@stripped
> 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 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