Author Topic: New SQL Server (Read 316426 times)

metallica48423 · « **Reply #120 on:** May 02, 2009, 02:14:26 PM »

Yes, we use a *very* customized LAMP setup.

neetusharma · « **Reply #121 on:** May 04, 2009, 06:10:00 AM »

hi gd news

ოկtђ · « **Reply #122 on:** May 30, 2009, 08:21:46 AM »

Wow its great.

/\takan · « **Reply #123 on:** June 22, 2009, 04:42:31 AM »

Thanks..

Eliana Tamerin · « **Reply #124 on:** June 22, 2009, 12:21:50 PM »

Quote from: metallica48423 on May 02, 2009, 02:14:26 PM

Yes, we use a *very* customized LAMP setup.

So customized, that when one of Amy's dogs sing, the server does a fsck.

Ben K · « **Reply #125 on:** August 16, 2009, 04:31:11 PM »

Can some one upload a picture of that "monstor" ?

dschwab9 · « **Reply #126 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:45:05 PM »

Quote from: Ben K on August 16, 2009, 04:31:11 PM

Can some one upload a picture of that "monstor" ?

Not very clear. but here's a couple of pics.

Yigal · « **Reply #127 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:48:24 PM »

Wow....do you have people sitting there or somethin'

dschwab9 · « **Reply #128 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:52:21 PM »

Quote from: Yigal on August 20, 2009, 10:48:24 PM

Wow....do you have people sitting there or somethin'

No, but I keep updated pics of the rack layout in case I have to walk someone through handling an issue remotely

Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen · « **Reply #129 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:58:32 AM »

Quote from: dschwab9 on August 20, 2009, 10:52:21 PM

Quote from: Yigal on August 20, 2009, 10:48:24 PM
Wow....do you have people sitting there or somethin'

No, but I keep updated pics of the rack layout in case I have to walk someone through handling an issue remotely

That's really a good idea.

青山素子 · « **Reply #130 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:03:59 AM »

Quote from: LexArma on August 21, 2009, 12:58:32 AM

Quote from: dschwab9 on August 20, 2009, 10:52:21 PM
No, but I keep updated pics of the rack layout in case I have to walk someone through handling an issue remotely

That's really a good idea.

Great idea indeed, but that wouldn't have helped at the previous data center my company was with.

They banned all cameras from the data center floor. Then again, they were the main peering point for the fiber loop in the region and had companies like Bandai (there was a full-size Power Ranger / Super Sentai doll in their cage), Washington Mutual, and Yahoo! on the floor so it may have been justified for privacy.

Amacythe · « **Reply #131 on:** August 22, 2009, 04:38:32 AM »

Quote from: Yigal on August 20, 2009, 10:48:24 PM

Wow....do you have people sitting there or somethin'

Of course we do... dschwab9 is kept chained in the cage

ѕησω · « **Reply #132 on:** August 22, 2009, 09:01:41 AM »

Quote from: Amacythe on August 22, 2009, 04:38:32 AM

Quote from: Yigal on August 20, 2009, 10:48:24 PM
Wow....do you have people sitting there or somethin'

Of course we do... dschwab9 is kept chained in the cage

Who comes to feed him now the oldiess is in marketing

Yigal · « **Reply #133 on:** August 23, 2009, 10:09:51 PM »

We have an automatic system that feeds it him. xD

Bas · « **Reply #134 on:** September 01, 2009, 02:31:18 PM »

Quote from: dschwab9 on April 16, 2009, 03:15:08 PM

Hey guys, just wanted to give everyone an update on the site status.

We have just completed migrating our SQL databases to a brand new box. The new machine is a 2.5GHz 8 core machine with 12GB of RAM and 6 146GB 10,000 RPM SAS drives in RAID 10. This should dramatically improve the speed of the forums.

The number of cores is unimportant for database servers, sorry but it doesn't do much.
And 10K SAS drives? Do they still make those?
I would use 15K SAS drives and put them in RAID5.
As for the CPU, bad choice, you better have gone 2~4 AMD DUAL/QUAD core in NUMA config, that will give you a memory bandwidth that's incredible.
Cores only help if you have enough memory-speed to support it, databases typical need a lot of memory speed, CPU speed is second to that.
12GB, sorry, useless, as your memory speed is too slow for 8 cores to keep busy at all, I bet most cores are idle.

Arantor · « **Reply #135 on:** September 01, 2009, 06:11:21 PM »

Actually, the number of cores does make a difference; MySQL scales differently on different cores. Plus when you have sufficient RAM to cache things in memory (and/or have MEMORY based tables in MySQL), ability to process in parallel is actually kind of important too.

Remember, how this site is configured is not the same as other forums, and likely has a lot pushed into memory-based storage.

rsw686 · « **Reply #136 on:** September 01, 2009, 08:30:33 PM »

Quote from: Bas on September 01, 2009, 02:31:18 PM

The number of cores is unimportant for database servers, sorry but it doesn't do much.
And 10K SAS drives? Do they still make those?
I would use 15K SAS drives and put them in RAID5.
As for the CPU, bad choice, you better have gone 2~4 AMD DUAL/QUAD core in NUMA config, that will give you a memory bandwidth that's incredible.
Cores only help if you have enough memory-speed to support it, databases typical need a lot of memory speed, CPU speed is second to that.
12GB, sorry, useless, as your memory speed is too slow for 8 cores to keep busy at all, I bet most cores are idle.

I agree with the 15k drives. The more IOPs you can push the better. However whats the point of 15k drives if you want to run them in RAID 5. RAID 5 has a write overhead that RAID 10 doesn't have. The IOP load of a database server will benefit from RAID 10.

12GB of memory should be more than sufficient for this site. If each post averaged 2KB the database with 2 million posts would be around 4GB plus indexes, which doesn't even come close to 12GB. As long as it is running a 64bit OS mySQL should have plenty of memory to cache with.

dschwab9 · « **Reply #137 on:** September 03, 2009, 08:56:31 PM »

Guys, I hate to be the bad guy, but that is incorrect. Processing cores and memory trump everything with the type of workload we have here. MySQL multithreads very will and the load stays distributed fairly evenly. We are currently running 16 MySQL threads and performance is great.

Disk speed - yeah, faster is always better, but the difference in performance between a 10K and a 15K drive is minimal and not worth the added cost in our situation. We have a relatively small dataset - around 10GB with lots of traffic - over 300 queries per second at times. Why would you want to have no memory and fast disks that you thrash constantly? Having lots of RAM and heavily using the query and table caches outperforms fast disks by a long shot. The bottleneck is the GigE connecting everything together, not disk, memory, or CPU speed. Just checked the server and we are currently using about 11GB of RAM.

Also, yes, RAID 5 isn't the best for a database server. However, we are not running RAID 5.

Kill Em All · « **Reply #138 on:** September 04, 2009, 12:47:49 AM »

Genius! Very excellent post dschwab9! Well informative.

Hell Raiser · « **Reply #139 on:** September 04, 2009, 06:54:21 AM »

11GB RAM

Short it down to 8GB and let me borrow other 3GB's of RAM for my PC

News:

Author Topic: New SQL Server (Read 316426 times)