i'm sorry to hit just into this, but did i get it right that active/active mysql does actually work? regards, johannes > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Brieck Jr. > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:11 PM > To: linux clustering > Subject: Re: Cluster vs Distributed? & MySQL Cluster? > > > On 10/25/06, Michael Will <mwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Are the actual data files shared in this setup between the active mysql > > daemons? > > > > Last time I looked into this it seemed that with shared-nothing > model each > > mysql daemon would have to keep it's own copy of the data and updates > > would be propagated from active to passive daemons (master-slave model) > > or between active daemons (ndb in-ram database model) > > > > Are the mysql daemons running on the GFS I/O nodes that have access to > > shared > > storage via SAN or iSCSI and coordinate locking through GFS > > infrastructure, or are > > the mysql daemons running on client nodes that use GFS to remotely > > access storage > > that is provided by other GFS I/O nodes that in turn have > access to shared > > storage via SAN or iSCSI? > > > > Michael > > > > We're using GNBD for the nodes to connect to the storage. We don't > have the fastest storage setup right now, but I'm hopeful that if > everything works well we'll be purchasing a faster storage setup. > > As far as MySQL using GFS (excluding anything with active-active) and > using DLM to do locks, here are some comparisons: > > Benchmark on GFS > > Benchmark DBD suite: 2.15 > Date of test: 2006-10-26 9:49:43 > Running tests on: Linux 2.6.9-42.0.2.ELhugemem i686 > Arguments: --small-test --tcpip --fast --fast-insert > --lock-tables > Comments: > Limits from: > Server version: MySQL 4.1.20/ > Optimization: None > Hardware: > > alter-table: Total time: 94 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + > 0.00 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.03 CPU) > big-tables: Total time: 4 wallclock secs ( 0.13 usr 0.14 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 0.27 CPU) > connect: Total time: 5 wallclock secs ( 0.38 usr 0.53 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 0.91 CPU) > create: Total time: 8 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 0.03 CPU) > insert: Total time: 17 wallclock secs ( 2.19 usr 1.99 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 4.18 CPU) > select: Total time: 13 wallclock secs ( 2.36 usr 1.03 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 3.39 CPU) > > Benchmark on Local > > alter-table: Total time: 70 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + > 0.00 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.02 CPU) > big-tables: Total time: 2 wallclock secs ( 0.11 usr 0.14 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 0.25 CPU) > connect: Total time: 4 wallclock secs ( 0.37 usr 0.55 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 0.92 CPU) > create: Total time: 1 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 0.01 CPU) > insert: Total time: 13 wallclock secs ( 2.27 usr 1.95 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 4.22 CPU) > select: Total time: 12 wallclock secs ( 2.21 usr 0.97 sys + 0.00 > cusr 0.00 csys = 3.18 CPU) > > It's pretty darn close and I'm willing to take a small performance hit. > > Here's some relevant info: local storage is RAID5 and GFS is RAID10 > and shared using CLVM, multipath, and GNBD. So the speed of the test > locally would probably be faster if it were either RAID1 or 10, not 5. > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
