Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Running MYSQL on leopard/snow?
- Thread starter ZebraineZ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I personally would go with Linux, if for nothing else because there is a much larger community that uses Linux to host MySQL servers than there are those who use macs to do so.
Futhermore, in my opinion Linux servers are more stable than macs.
+1. I use a Linux server to host LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and it works flawlessly. It hasn't crashed a single time in months.
I used an old PowerBook G4 as a server for a while a year ago, but problems often resulted in strange workarounds and there wasn't a huge community to support it.
MySQL performs poorly in OS X because it expects thread creation to be fast and low overhead. OS X's threading model is much heavier (due to complexity and features) and it's fairly crippling for MySQL. If your application requires MySQL then you're a lot better off using a different Unix. And if your application doesn't require MySQL then what in the blazes are you using MySQL for?! 
Other databases like PostgreSQL perform much better in OS X.
Other databases like PostgreSQL perform much better in OS X.
Any laptop is a poor choice for a database. Irrespectively of the laptop model, DB or OS.
The single most important criteria for running a DB is disk I/O. Next is DB and last the OS.
If you have the budget, run Oracle on Solaris with a RAID 10 disk subsystem.
The single most important criteria for running a DB is disk I/O. Next is DB and last the OS.
If you have the budget, run Oracle on Solaris with a RAID 10 disk subsystem.
Personally I am not a huge fan of RAID 10 as I end up loosing about 40% of my total disk space (however would use it over a RAID 5 any day esp because it has much better write speed). I also find that unless you are building a 6TB database, a single WD RE4 drive tends to be much more budget friendly then say 3 or 4 SAS drives in a RAID. I also find that it will provide about the same end user experience as a similar sized RAID option. Though if your using 10,000RPM drives in your RAID it will provide better results then a single large drive.
To be honest the only RAID I am truly a fan of is 0+1 which is what I am using for my home server's OS partition. 3 10,000RPM SATA drives did actually end up providing a better result then anything else I tried, however this is not at all a setup I would use for a DB
Cheers
Cameron.
Curious, since the storage "loss" of RAID 10 is identical to the storage "loss" of RAID 0+1. The only difference is the order you do the striping and mirroring in. Can't figure out where the "40%" figure comes from either. I can't find any way to divide 4 drives in a way that yields a .4 in the result. The actual number is 50%.
How did you do RAID 0+1 with only three drives? RAID 0+1 requires a minimum of four drives (just like RAID 1+0).
Either way, I'm surprised to hear that anyone prefers striped mirrors over mirrored stripes, since 0+1 has a higher risk of data loss with no corresponding performance benefit over 1+0.