Which Is better and would give me better mysql Performance since mysql eats up huge amounts of CPU and RAM.
AMD 64Bit 3200 Or a Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86 GHz
I know theres many other factors involved but I need to know which processor would perform better with mysql.
setting up the MySql thread_concurrency variable on a Single-Processor Xeon 2.6ghz QuadCore .
Should it be 8 (num of cores * 2) ? or 4?
quad core processor vs Intel Xeon 3060 Dual Core Conroe Processor which is better any why?
View 2 Replies View Relatedwondering in general and specifically for woodcrest vs conroe and kentsfield vs clovertown
I can't find either
a) an explanation as to why the server cpu's are superior to the desktop equivilents
or
b) benchmarks comparing them.
even mainstream hardware sites like tomshardware has benchmarks for server hdd's, but not server cpu's for some reason.
apart from the ability to use dual cpu's in a single machine, what is the advantage? what warrants the price difference? are there benchmarks available anywhere to compare comparable models? (example, woodcrest xeon 5150 2.66ghz vs conroe c2d e6700 2.66ghz)
I am considering to upgrade to MySQL 5.0. I am using 4.1 at present. Now I wonder if it will really improve performance... I really have some busy databases... Also wonder if 5.0 is fully downwards compatible to 4.1
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a site that runs from a MySQL database. The database isn't big, it has only 16.1 MB on 17 tables with 103,978 records, and all are properly indexed.
My problem is that my MySQL has a particular problem with this database because I'll have to wait around 5-10 minutes to receive the query results.
I've tuned MySQL, I've tuned Apache and in the daily usage i have usually low Load Averages of 0.19 0.22 0.40. My server specs are Intel P4 at 3GHz with HT, 2Gb of RAM (in dual Chanel), 2 Hdd of 250Gb (backup) and 300Gb (main hdd), both with 16 mb cache. I'm running Debian 3.1 with 2.6 kernel and there is no swapping to disk as i had previous on the 2.4 kernel.
I will post my.conf below and maybe you'll give me a suggestion.
Code:
#
# The MySQL database server configuration file.
#
# You can copy this to one of:
# - "/etc/mysql/my.cnf" to set global options,
# - "/var/lib/mysql/my.cnf" to set server-specific options or
# - "~/.my.cnf" to set user-specific options.
#
# One can use all long options that the program supports.
# Run program with --help to get a list of available options and with
# --print-defaults to see which it would actually understand and use.
#
# For explanations see
# [url]
# This will be passed to all mysql clients
# It has been reported that passwords should be enclosed with ticks/quotes
# escpecially if they contain "#" chars...
# Remember to edit /etc/mysql/debian.cnf when changing the socket location.
[client]
port= 3306
socket= /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
# Here is entries for some specific programs
# The following values assume you have at least 32M ram
# This was formally known as [safe_mysqld]. Both versions are currently parsed.
[mysqld_safe]
socket= /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
nice= 0
[mysqld]
#
# * Basic Settings
#
user= mysql
pid-file= /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid
socket= /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
port= 3306
basedir= /usr
datadir= /var/lib/mysql
tmpdir= /tmp
language= /usr/share/mysql/english
skip-external-locking
#
# For compatibility to other Debian packages that still use
# libmysqlclient10 and libmysqlclient12.
old_passwords= 1
#
# Instead of skip-networking the default is now to listen only on
# localhost which is more compatible and is not less secure.
bind-address= 127.0.0.1
#
# * Fine Tuning
#
key_buffer= 32M
key_buffer_size= 32M
max_allowed_packet= 16M
myisam_sort_buffer_size = 32M
table_cache= 3072
sort_buffer_size= 4M
read_buffer_size= 4M
read_rnd_buffer_size= 4M
join_buffer_size= 2M
thread_stack= 512K
wait_timeout= 300
max_connection = 60
max_connect_errors= 10
thread_cache_size= 100
long_query_time= 2
max_user_connections= 50
interactive_timeout= 100
connect_timeout= 15
tmp_table_size= 64M
open_files_limit= 3072
max_heap_table_size = 64M
#
# * Query Cache Configuration
#
query_cache_limit= 2M
query_cache_size = 64M
query_cache_type = 1
#
# * Logging and Replication
#
# Both location gets rotated by the cronjob.
# Be aware that this log type is a performance killer.
#log= /var/log/mysql.log
#log= /var/log/mysql/mysql.log
#
# Error logging goes to syslog. This is a Debian improvement :)
#
# Here you can see queries with especially long duration
log-slow-queries= /var/log/mysql/mysql-slow.log
log-queries-not-using-indexes = /var/log/mysql/mysql-index.log
# The following can be used as easy to replay backup logs or for replication.
#server-id= 1
log-bin= /var/log/mysql/mysql-bin.log
# See /etc/mysql/debian-log-rotate.conf for the number of files kept.
max_binlog_size = 104857600
#binlog-do-db= include_database_name
#binlog-ignore-db= include_database_name
#
# * BerkeleyDB
#
# According to an MySQL employee the use of BerkeleyDB is now discouraged
# and support for it will probably cease in the next versions.
skip-bdb
#
# * InnoDB
#
# InnoDB is enabled by default with a 10MB datafile in /var/lib/mysql/.
# Read the manual for more InnoDB related options. There are many!
#
# * Security Features
#
# Read the manual, too, if you want chroot!
# chroot = /var/lib/mysql/
#
# If you want to enable SSL support (recommended) read the manual or my
# HOWTO in /usr/share/doc/mysql-server/SSL-MINI-HOWTO.txt.gz
# ssl-ca=/etc/mysql/cacert.pem
# ssl-cert=/etc/mysql/server-cert.pem
# ssl-key=/etc/mysql/server-key.pem
[mysqldump]
quick
quote-names
max_allowed_packet= 64M
[mysql]
#no-auto-rehash# faster start of mysql but no tab completition
[isamchk]
key_buffer= 32M
sort_buffer_size= 32M
read_buffer= 16M
write_buffer= 16M
[myisamchk]
key_buffer = 32M
sort_buffer_size = 32M
read_buffer = 16M
write_buffer = 16M
I thought that i might need to start rewriting my code in order to be able to fix things but i need at least another opinion from someone who knows more.
I have published 2 articles about MySQL benchmark results. They can be viewed here:
- super-smack: [url]
- sql-bench: [url]
If you have any results to compare, please let me know, either here or via comments.
question regarding hard disk performance.
Right now i have a busy running forum Running on a Single Xeon 5335 with 4GB of RAM,
single 73GB SCSI 15K. And the site seems running fine most of the time except at peak.
The load sometime goes up to 8 for about 1 hour. So i am looking to upgrade my server.
The next server i am thinking about is
Single C2Q 9300, 8GB of RAM, 1x750GB SATAII as primary drive for for webserver, 1x150GB Raptor 10K to serve MYSQL only.
I wonder if the HDD performance on my current server server with future server be the same of better? Since the future server has better CPU and RAM, the only thing i worry is the HDD performance.
So in short, Single SCSI 15K V.S Combination of SATA + RAPTOR. What do you guy think?
i am using Litespeed as webserver and i also will be using litespeed on future server.
I was wondering if there is a significant performance gain if you use PHP 5.25 and MySQL 5x instead PHP 4.47 and MySQL 4.22?
Let's say that the scripts to be used are all compatible to the said versions.
I've decided to give VPS a shot. So...
I'm runnning the same query on a 1 & 1 VPS, where the MySQL server is local, and on a 1 & 1 shared server (where the MySQL server is remote).
The MySQL version on the VPS machine is 4.1, while on the shared server it's 4.0.
The exact same query takes 20x longer (!) on the VPS.
I have the hatchling plan on HostGator. Is there a PHP and MySQL open-source application where I can put up there to test its performance on running PHP and MySql applications? I want to see if there is any performance issue on this host before migrating a large ZenCart app to it.
What are people's experience on HostGator running PHP and MySQL?
I'm having some performance issues on IIS with my PHP and MySQL applications. I'm also starting to see some errors.
One of my main apps is vBulletin. I've tried posting there for help, but not many people there have experience with IIS.
See this thread:
[url]
I'm going to be rolling out a php/mysql driven site soon and I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that the mysql performance dreamhost has given me isn't going to cut it, its probably too oversold. Simple one table one column selects can take 30 seconds or time out depending on how badly the server is being hammered. HTTP requests are usually snappy, but the mysql performance is bogus.
What is a good host for me to launch this site with? Storage wouldn't need to be too terribly high, at least initially. I'm tempted by MediaTemple's slick marketing, but I've seen on here that some people have had poor sql performance (contrary to what some personal friends have experienced, so I'm torn). I was reading about downtownhost on here, but their load times seemed slow when I hit a couple domains listed on here that are hosted by them.
This host needs to be located in the US. Honestly, I like dreamhost and their panel, save for the sql sluggishness I'm getting.
If you have experience with large mysql databases please share your thoughts about a new MySQL server. If all other parameters are the same, what is better for a 6-10 GB MySQL db, dedicated server?
Dual XEON or Dual Opteron 2212 Dual Core Processor?
Also, any advice on suggested RAM, partitioning, OS, etc. are welcome. Current MySQL version used is 4.1.21.
During my poking around performance tips I found the DELAY_KEY_WRITE option (and innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 0 for innodb)
which supposedly for mysql will disable the immediate disk flush for every transaction written and instead update only once every second at most?
One thing I've never had to restart on my vps is mysql, it's been great. So is this safe to turn on? Am I risking corruption? Will the performance gain be worth it with only a 16M cache?
I am using dreamhost host 3 of my web sites and 1 blog. Dreamhost is great, offers alot space and bandwidth.
but I think they are oversellling their space, sometimes it gets really slow. (overselling ? ok, I dont really know, but sometimes its really slow, and most my asian readers said need to refresh to load the page. I am wondering if theres a way to check if they are overselling or not.)
I am thinking about buying vps, even tho, I still got 5 month left with dreamhost.
I found 2 vps companies are highly recommanded on this forum, JaguarPC and LiquidWeb.
theres already a post compared both companies in terms of price and service. I say I will pick JagarPc, cuz, its basic plan just 20 USD, and htey got promotion now, its even cheaper. and basic Liquidweb vps plan is 60 bucks.
I am wondering why Jagarpc is so cheap , are they overselling? how can we check if they are overselling.
I found a few posts saying how good jaguarPc is. and they are not overselling, but those members just signed up this month, and only have 1-3 posts. I cannot really trust those new members.
Can someone share their experience with JaguarPC? compare JaguarPc performance and liquidweb performance. antoher question is switch from dreamhost to JaguarPC basic vPS plan, will performance gets better?
last question: VPS account allows 3 IP, 3ip = 3 domains? if not, how many domains can I have?
In Terms of server speed, reliability, load handling, mysql database handling and other aspects which is better processor with same RAM config..
Processor 1 : P4 3Ghz Dual Core
Processor 2 : Intel Celeron-L Conroe 1.6 Ghz
OR
Processor 3 :Celeron Dual Core E1200's
I have always used Intel processors. Maybe just out of habit but I always have.
AMD Dual-Core Opeteron 1216 2.40GHz
or
Intel Quad-Core Xeon 2.50GHz 2.66GHz
Both would have 4GB ram.
What is the actual performance differences between these two processors? The Intel is $80 more and just not sure if it really is worth it.
Hows everybody doing. I am hosting a small network of sites (between 5-10) on a dedicated server with HostGator. I have the Standard package which gives me 1024mb as far as RAM and a Dual-Core 3040 Xeon (Conroe) as a processor goes.
My sites run extremely slow on the front end and back end. The sites are blogs which you probably know are php heavy. Not to mention a few of the sites get a decent amount of traffic (Alexa rankings of around 50K). One of the less popular sites with not as much traffic is www(dot)abnormalstyle(dot)com ...You can see how slow this site loads, its on the same server as the other sites, just using a different IP account...
I am looking to upgrade my server. When i talked to HostGator support i got the answer i would expect. "Upgrade to the next package, which is more money".
I am wondering if i would advantage from just upgrading my ram, or going with a processor first. The thing is, if i want to get the next processor i have to defiantly go with the next HostGator package, due to the fact they cant just add a new processor. They can however add more Ram.
Below are some options, if you have the time feel free to leave your comments and pick one of the options below which you feel would best suit the network of Wordpress blog sites i am using.
---------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 - Just upgrade RAM. There is no sense in going from a Dual-Core 3040 Xeon (Conroe) processor to just a Quad-Core 3210 Xeon (Kentsfield) processor, regardless of the ram, it will not make a major difference. ITS ALL ABOUT RAM!
Option 2 - Go for the next HostGator package which offers 4096mb Ram wise and Quad-Core 3210 Xeon (Kentsfield) processor wise. The Processor upgrade along with the RAM upgrade will be MUCH BETTER then just the ram upgrade itself in option 1.
After reading a lot of good reviews on Softlayer around here, I was thinking about switching to them. They have some really good deals and I'm planning on getting one of their dual opterons, but I have a question about the processor speed in relation to database intense stuff (like a forum with a good number of users on at once, or a CMS).
I have the option of either going for a Dual Opteron 248 (2.2 gHz) or a 252 (2.6 gHz) which costs $50 more. My question: is the 252 really worth the extra money compared to the 248? All I have on my server is an IPB forum with 100-450+ users on at any given time, and a static site (soon to be converted to a CMS), and I'm thinking that RAM is more important than the processor for a database app like those (that, and hard drive speed). So I wanted to know if it would be better to go with the 248 and spend the money on more Ram and a SA SCSI 10k drive or two?
I have a production windows 2003 server with 2 XEON processors. In task manager I see 4 processors: 0,1,2,3. I assume this is because these processors have hyperthreading. My question is how do I know which 2 of the 4 are the main processors. I have a service I only want to run on processor 2, which 2 would I select to do this? I really don't want to be experimenting as this is a live production server.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a single Intel Xeon Processor and already found a same stepping code Xeon processor to upgrade.
I'm running CentOS 4.4. If I add the 2nd processor, do I need to configure anything on the system.
Anyone has an opinion about the following processor:
CPU Intel Xeon Quad Core 3210
Planning on getting a new dedicated server with 4GB RAM, and a 500GB 7.2k SATA2 Hard Drive.
Which processor do you guys suggest? I know the Q6600 is older and runs hotter, but it has better specs than the Q8200. Would I really notice a difference if I'm only hosting static sites without any video streaming or anything?
if im going to open a web hosting business, which processor works best for a server, AMD or Intel?
View 12 Replies View RelatedIntel Dual Quad Core Harpertown Or Core i7?
What would be better for a dedicated server?
while I'm surfing the net i find this site where it has a price list for the parts of a computer and i saw an Intel Xeon processor and it's priced is affordable to me.. Hmm.. My question now is it Ok to buy this processor? because some of my I.T. friends here tell me that it is for Server based processor only and it is not suitable for PC HOME USER..
View 2 Replies View RelatedThe the provider we're considering is offering a range of processors at different price points including:
single Xeon 5110 (dual core) with 2GB memory,
single Xeon X3220 (quad) 2GB,
dual Intel Xeon 5100 with 2GB,
dual Xenon 5310 (quads) with 4GB.
Does xen run better on a double processor server rather than an intel duo?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have read benchmark comparisons and found the Q9400 and even the Q9300 to be a better performing processor compared to the Q6600 processor, even with 2MB less L2 cache.
I am just wondering, how significant of a difference do you think the Q6600 processor and the Q9400 processor is in a server environment? Currently I have a Q6600 processor but am looking to upgrade my server, possibly to the Q9400 processor..will it be worth it? It's not that much more expensive..the only thing I am concerned about is the 2mb L2 cache loss.
My site is "kind-of" high traffic. We receive a lot of connections and visitors, and most-importantly my sites are run by PHP and MySQL databases.
Please help me choose the right processor. Currently I have 4GB DDR2-800mhz installed, which I will be upgrading to 8GB DDR2-800mhz, no matter what processor I choose to run.
I discovered that upgrading to 1ghz RAM is just not worth the extra money because the performance gain is very little and not noticeable.
Would anyone possibly know of a Intel Quad Core processor that has 8mb or more of L2 cache, 1333mhz FSB, and is comparable to the processors listed above and relatively the same in price?
I have a dual processor server and today I was monitoring CPU usage using the ‘top’ command
There was a mysql process I was tweaking around with where the CPU % kept jumping over 100%.. It went up to 155%, 175%, 180% on numerous occasions.
My question is on a dual processor machine does ‘top’ measure CPU usage between 0% and 200% or does the usages I saw earlier mean my server was getting REALLY overloaded?