Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Running MYSQL on leopard/snow?

Z

ZebraineZ

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Hey, is a Macbook with 10.5/6 better for MYSQL or possibly a webserver or Linux/Windows?

I know it isn't much info but I want to see what you guys think it is.
 
ZebraineZ said:
Hey, is a Macbook with 10.5/6 better for MYSQL or possibly a webserver or Linux/Windows?

I know it isn't much info but I want to see what you guys think it is.
Click to expand...

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.
 
foidulus said:
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.
Click to expand...

+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.
 
Because there is this maplestory private server, and which they need a new server to host the huge database on since it is causing the server to go unstable. I was looking into mac hosting but I geuss we will go with linux 🙂
 
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.
 
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.
 
dampfdruck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CTJoyce said:
Personally I am not a huge fan of RAID 10 as I end up loosing about 40% of my total disk space
. . .
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.
Click to expand...

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%.

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back