On Mon, April 13, 2009 11:55, mos wrote:
> At 09:53 AM 4/13/2009, Jerry Schwartz wrote:
>>Sorry for top-posting, but this is getting unwieldy.
>>The problems with hardware in multiprocessor systems have been dealt with
>>long since, assuming that Intel, AMD, et al have implemented the
>>Ten years ago and more, I worked with machines capable of 128 processors
>>they seemed to work okay.
> Well having a machine with 128 processors and actually getting MySQL to
> take advantage of 128 processors is a different matter entirely.
> MySQL does not scale well beyond 4 processors, at least not like
> does. MySQL seems to hit a plateau rather quickly. If XtraDb's modified
> Innodb plugin scales better, then fine. But I haven't seen any benchmarks
> showing the speed improvements relative to the number of processors used
> and is something I'd really like to see.
>>Of course, there was a price difference. :<)
>>As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the
>>locking and disk access speed.
> Of course. When it comes to MySQL, I would invest more money into more
> memory and fast SSD drives rather than more CPU's. You'll get a bigger
> for the buck. :)
It sounds like we are talking about a server were everything is trying to
get at the same database and tables, correct? Sort of, it you had to put
Best Buy or Sears on a box how would you do it, vs if you had many
different databases all being hit at the same time. Has anyone
benchmarked that scenario?
William R. Mussatto