Never think enough is enough.. Current operation levels can easily be pushed many
times their current level/ratio in a short matter of time, and databases
can grow rapidly (Even tho it's not identified here)
I have spec'd boxes before based on someone reccomendations for load, and
then found 2 months later the box is choking, time to upgrade = potential
downtime..
2 extra disks is minimal cost for the I/O boost and amount
of extra capacity you'll get.
I agree with the write cache and battery backup... Any decent raidcard has
that option for a few bucks...
4GB database today, can easily turn into a 20GB database tomorrow.. Never
think small,
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> colbey@stripped wrote:
>
> > I'd go with raid 1+0 ... Be a shame to have that much cpu power and become
> > I/O bound.. This way you've got 4 disks feeding the cpu's instead of 2..
> > Better performance than raid 5, and only 2 more disks than your current
> > config.
>
> If you have 8 GB of RAM and 4 GB of database, you would only
> become I/O bound if write a few hundred blocking commits per
> second to the disk*. In that case, having a battery backed RAID
> adapter with write cache enabled is a much better way of
> improving performance as going from RAID 1 to RAID 1+0.
>
> *Presuming the OS has a sane disk cache or is 64 bit.
>
> Jochem
>
> --
> I don't get it
> immigrants don't work
> and steal our jobs
> - Loesje
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
