On Wed, March 9, 2011 12:22, Phil Stracchino wrote:
[SNIP]
> Now, I said I'd get back to the MySQL issues. I was reading through
> some documents about mySQL on ZFS, and came across (again) a
> recommendation from one MySQL tester that reported the best MySQL
> performance from setting the InnoDB buffer pool small, 100MB or so, and
> allowing ZFS to do the data caching. And I thought, "You know, I don't
> believe I've ever tried this. I'll give it a shot and see how it goes."
>
> Well, after trying this, I can now definitively state: DO NOT DO THIS
> IF YOUR BACULA CATALOG IS ON MYSQL. It may well work well for general
> usage, but for Bacula, this configuration trick DOES NOT WORK. If you
> are using Bacula with a MySQL catalog database on ZFS, configure MySQL
> as you would if it were NOT on ZFS. Do NOT rely on the "let ZFS cache
> the data" trick, because it won't work with Bacula.
>
Hmm, what version of MySQL did the document you found refer to? And what
one are you using?
It is possible that the recommendation is correct for the webstack or some
internal SUN build of MySQL - my Webstack has "innodb_buffer_pool_size =
2048M" - perhaps it is correct when using the MyISAM engine? Or some such
variant?
The only MySQL on ZFS recommendation I can remember reading was the one to
change the record size of the underlying file system where the INNODB data
files reside to 16K, nothing about buffer pool sizes.
That said, after far too many years writing, administering, and using
databases, the thought of using a small buffer pool (or equivalent) on
*any* database just doesn't feel right to me.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
