memcached vs tuning MySql

[der.hans]

Am 12. Dez, 2014 schwätzte Keith Smith so:

moin moin Keith,

Your server isn't dedicated to MySQL, so don't go for max recommended.
Determine how much active InnoDB data you'll have and allot a bit more than
that or as much memory as isn't being used for other apps, whichever is
smaller.

http://www.percona.com/blog/2007/11/03/choosing-innodb_buffer_pool_size/

ciao,

der.hans

> 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
>
>

-- 
#  http://www.LuftHans.com/        http://www.PhxLinux.org/
#  "The babys blood type? Human, mostly."  -- Orson Scott Card