[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Server for Debian + MySQL



On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:10:52AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 12/11/08 02:02, Adrian Chapela wrote:
> >Ron Johnson escribi?:
> >>On 12/10/08 20:09, kj wrote:
> >>>Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>>>"Large systems" (meaning mainframes and "traditional" minicomputers 
> >>>>running legacy OSs) are never dedicated.  They run application 
> >>>>software as well as RDBMSs.

> >>>And it can.  If it couldn't, Plesk would not be selling.  In my job I 
> >>>admin servers that do web, mail, and db for anything from a handful 
> >>>to 1200+ domains on a single box.  No problem there (mostly).  But 
> >>>the load on the server's resources are, in the end, down to to what 
> >>>your application does.

> >>The grumpy geezer in me says you make a dedicated DB server only if 
> >>your hardware and/or OS isn't up to snuff, or your RDBMS is a horrible 
> >>pig, and that any modern desktop PC should have enough juice to 
> >>support an RDBMS, dozens applications and 10,000 OLTP users.
> >It depends on many things. I have a intensive applications and I need a 
> >server with separate RDBMS. I have a +200GB database size and need to 
> >increase to a minimum of 1000GB (to save more old data to report purposes).
> >
> >You need to think on many different architechtures and needs because for 
> >many web sites you don't need a big machine, with a PC you should run 
> >web server + rdbms without problems (even to many domains on this single 
> >machine...) but there are many companies that can't run web server and 
> >rdbms on same machine, even have many RDBMS servers and a lot of web 
> >servers, to achieve a good performance and high availability.
> 
> We supported 70 on-line users *plus* ran batch jobs on a
> pathetically slow 1980-vintage 1.6 MIPS machine with only 6MB RAM.
> 
> >MySQL runs on commodity hardware but if you are doing 1000 statements 
> >executions per second, you need to think on a good hardware if you want 
> >a reasonable performance.

I think that the disconnect here is when one compares two different
types of computer based only on a comparision of their computational
power.  Sure, the 1980-vintage 1.6 MIPS machine only had 6 MB ram (and
was only 1.6 MIPS), but look at what hardware it had to support that
slow CPU and memory.  What was the disk subsystem like?  What about
bus(es)?  What about secondary processors to offload the
system-grunt-work to allow the CPU to just deal with the application?

Look at the i386 (and amd64) architecture and look at everything the CPU
has to do.  Look at everything that interrupts it and causes it to do a
context switch.  

Nowadays, it seems like people are making BIG IRON out of tiny iron,
with multiple dedicated 1U servers with separate storage
servers/controllers/SANs/whatevers all to capture the reliability and
performance of the large systems without the propriatary cost of a
monolithic large system.

Doug.


Reply to: