| Storing InnoDB tables on RAM disk [message #2077] |
Wed, 17 October 2007 07:15  |
 Nomad
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2007
Location: Ukraine |
Junior Member |
|
|
Greetings
Currently I'm using MySQL 5.0 and InnoDB to store small database (1.1-1.8GB). I need extremely fast read access and moderate insert/update speed. On my dedicated server there is 4 GB RAM and I use 2GB as RAM drive where InnoDB bases are stored. Also InnoDB memory usage is set to minimal settings and 128MB log file (also placed on RAM disk).
Such combination gives me required speed but limits database size and requires extended backup features, etc.
My question is simple - is it possible to implement similar performance without RAM drive, just giving MySQL RAM that is now wasted on virtual drive.
Please, make comparative tests and post the results instead of just telling to "increase log size, may be it would help".
Russian version of my question can be found here: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/about/#comment-178034
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Storing InnoDB tables on RAM disk [message #2101 is a reply to message #2094 ] |
Fri, 19 October 2007 00:51  |
|
| Nomad wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 03:58 |
| AlexN wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 10:09 |
| Nomad wrote on Wed, 17 October 2007 16:00 |
May be someone could test different options and configurations to compare performance difference to RAM disk solution.
|
I'm sorry - do you mean someone would test it using YOUR queries ?
|
I'm asking you not to optimize my queries and configs, but to perform some tests (and for site owners - to write an article) comparing RAM disk solution vs optimized memory usage on heavy load.
|
If you'd like us to perform these tests for you, I can send you our hourly rates info.
Alexey Kovyrin, MySQL Performance Expert
MySQL Performance Blog
MySQL Consulting
|
|
|
| Re: Storing InnoDB tables on RAM disk [message #2102 is a reply to message #2077 ] |
Fri, 19 October 2007 00:58 |
|
| Nomad wrote on Wed, 17 October 2007 07:15 |
Greetings
Currently I'm using MySQL 5.0 and InnoDB to store small database (1.1-1.8GB).
|
First of all, if you use in-memory db, you don't really need innodb because the most useful feature there is reliability and in your case it has no advantages at all. So, I'd suggest you to try myisam tables (they'd use less "disk" space because of compression) or MEMORY(HEAP) storage engine, which is in-memory by default.
As for tests, your approach is REALLY strange and I personally don't see any reasons to test such configuration because even if we'd be able to show that it is really fast, no one would use such approach because mysql has its own in-memory db implementation for such needs.
Alexey Kovyrin, MySQL Performance Expert
MySQL Performance Blog
MySQL Consulting
|
|
|
| Re: Storing InnoDB tables on RAM disk [message #2104 is a reply to message #2102 ] |
Fri, 19 October 2007 02:45 |
AlexN
Messages: 20
Registered: October 2007
Location: Moscow,Russia |
Junior Member |
|
|
| scoundrel wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 00:58 |
First of all, if you use in-memory db, you don't really need innodb because the most useful feature there is reliability and in your case it has no advantages at all.
|
Earlier he explained his reasons for using InnoDB.
| scoundrel wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 00:58 |
As for tests, your approach is REALLY strange and I personally don't see any reasons to test such configuration because even if we'd be able to show that it is really fast, no one would use such approach because mysql has its own in-memory db implementation for such needs.
|
The only reason for using RAM disc instead of in-memory tables
I see is faster warm-up. Initialization. Data load. In case of
memory table there should be a great number of insert statements
(even if packed into one dump file). In case of RAM disc just copy few files.
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
