memcached vs tuning MySql

[Sesso]

I would say tune mysql and then use xcache instead of memcached. This is the route that I prefer to go. Since you already have memcached working, use it.

Jason


> On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Keith Smith <techlists at phpcoderusa.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on a dual quad server with 16GB RAM.  Free says it is using about 10GB.
> 
> It serves several websites, the main one is a very active Drupal website.  As you know Drupal is a resource hog.  This one is even more so since there is tons of modules adding to the mix.
> 
> I am told I should tune MySql instead of using memcache.
> 
> The default max_allowed_packet is 1M.  Druapl requires 16M  I set it at 32M.  I page load is much faster and this is with memcache loaded and configured.  Memcache is currently configured to 64M of RAM for caching.  Seems very small.
> 
> Drupal uses innoDB and I am reading that increasing the innodb_buffer_pool_size will lead to a bust in performance.  I assume this will reduce IO and the server load should go down.
> 
> There is 4GB of free RAM and the server has not used any swap since it was rebooted last night.  The innodb_buffer_pool_size default value is 128MB. Since I do not know what to expect I am thinking of setting it to 1GB and see what happens and work up from there.
> 
> Any feedback is much appreciated!!
> 
> Keith
> 
> -- 
> Keith Smith
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss