In my experience, I have seen MySQL used in quite heavy load situations, and thus I will discard the first meaning of lightweight. As for expensive hardware, my own experience is mixed. Yahoo! and Google have shown the world that using an array of inexpensive boxes in replication is often the most sensible way of scaling. However, there are many users who don't feel comfortable with replication, and therefore buy more iron when their current box has reached its limits. Sometimes, an upgrade could be avoided by proper configuration, but this is beyond the point. Given the choice, what is your favorite hardware for MySQL?
There is a quick poll on the Dev Zone asking this question.
My own prediction is that we'll get an overwhelming majority of x86 1CPU-Dual core, but this is just a wild guess. Do you use anything different? Please, prove me wrong! Are you on my assumed majority slice? Then prove me right!
If you don't care about what I think (and you shouldn't, really!) please cast a vote for your favorite architecture!
1 comment:
Interesting poll results. Looks like your prediction might not be true.
I think this may prove out my contention that I have blogged about previously that hardware is moving along at a rate that MySQL may not be taking into account. Quad-core, dual chip units are quite common now, and it will probably be two more years before 8 core dual chip units are as common. Then what? From completely anecdotal evidence I understand that MySQL "tops off" at 8 cores and doesn't really utilize more than that if they are present. As I said, that is completely anecdotal - so don't hold me to that. Memory is going the same way with 32 gigs being quite common now where it use to be unheard of.
Post a Comment