-+---++-+-+--+---++-+-+-+---+--+-+-----+
>
>
> I am still benchmarking, bu
Am 14.09.2011 14:50, schrieb Maria Arrea:
> I have finally enabled compression:
> I am still benchmarking, but I see a 15-20% performance gain after enabling
> compression using bacula gui
as expected if disk-io is the only bottenleck
the same with NTFS-Compression inside a VMware Machine on mod
| |
+++-++---++-+-+--+---++-+-+-+---+--+-+-+
I am still benchmarking, but I see a 15-20% performance gain after enabling
compression using bacula gui (bat).
Regards
Maria
- Original Message -
From: Maria Arrea
Sent: 09/14/11 09:50 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Question about slow storage and InnoDB
Am 14.09.2011 09:50, schrieb Maria Arrea:
> I have read all your mails, and still not sure if I should enable innodb
> compression
if you have enough free cpu-ressources and IO is your problem simply yes
because the transfer from/to disk will be not so high as uncompressed
signature.asc
The server hosting bacula and the database only has one kind of disk: SATA,
maybe I should buy a couple of SSD for mysql.
I have read all your mails, and still not sure if I should enable innodb
compression. My ibfile is 50 GB, though.
Regards
Maria
Questions:
1) Why are you putting you
Thanks for correcting me in the disk stats Singer, A typo error of SSD
instead of SAS 15k rpm.
Compression may not increase the memory requirements :
To minimize I/O and to reduce the need to uncompress a page, at times the
buffer pool contains both the compressed and uncompressed form of a databa
I would recommend to go for a 15K rpm SSD raid-10 to keep the mysql data and
add the Barracuda file format with innodb file per table settings, 3 to 4 GB
of innodb buffer pool depending the ratio of myisam v/s innodb in your db.
Check the current stats and reduce the tmp and heap table size to a lo
