Comments on: Mysql on Windows vs Linux http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/ Using technology to help your business Wed, 16 May 2012 14:49:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sata 300 server http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-31622 sata 300 server Tue, 04 May 2010 05:00:34 +0000 http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/#comment-31622 This information is too much informative.thanks This information is too much informative.thanks

]]> By: frank http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-24978 frank Sat, 09 May 2009 04:25:50 +0000 http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/#comment-24978 Johanne, Your hunch is right on the money. We did further investigation into this and found the processor was the cause of the differences. <a href="http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/09/mysql-on-32bit-processor-vs-64bit-processor/" rel="nofollow">Check this out</a> Johanne,

Your hunch is right on the money. We did further investigation into this and found the processor was the cause of the differences.

Check this out

]]> By: Johanne M.A. Lim http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-24977 Johanne M.A. Lim Sat, 09 May 2009 04:02:30 +0000 http://informationideas.com/news/2008/05/01/mysql-on-windows-vs-linux/#comment-24977 quite interesting benchmark. would appreciate if you could also elaborate a bit more on the processor specifics for the Windows box as that could as well justify the difference between the Linux run. I run both Linux and Windows MySQL datastores from time to time and would prefer to stick with Linux/MySQL if not for budget constraints. However, a Windows/MySQL combo would also do good with the following enhancements: - 7200 (or upwards RPM) HDD that's partitioned with a 16k cluster for the drive that carries the MySQL database itself (hence less reads with larger chunks --- as compared to the default 4k or 8k that's got higher read rates). NOTE that this also has it's drawbacks for certain situations where the database still isn't huge enough to maximize this configuration. The less trips to the physical disk, the better.... therefore... - ...4 to 8gb of RAM would also be a good standard for Windows boxes running MySQL - if using a quad-core processor on Windows, I've found that setting the priority a bit higher on the mysql process itself (especially for days that reporting and queries are heavy) helps a lot - of course, both on Linux and Windows boxes, a gigabit network and proper switch system would help quite interesting benchmark. would appreciate if you could also elaborate a bit more on the processor specifics for the Windows box as that could as well justify the difference between the Linux run.

I run both Linux and Windows MySQL datastores from time to time and would prefer to stick with Linux/MySQL if not for budget constraints. However, a Windows/MySQL combo would also do good with the following enhancements:

- 7200 (or upwards RPM) HDD that’s partitioned with a 16k cluster for the drive that carries the MySQL database itself (hence less reads with larger chunks — as compared to the default 4k or 8k that’s got higher read rates). NOTE that this also has it’s drawbacks for certain situations where the database still isn’t huge enough to maximize this configuration. The less trips to the physical disk, the better…. therefore…

- …4 to 8gb of RAM would also be a good standard for Windows boxes running MySQL

- if using a quad-core processor on Windows, I’ve found that setting the priority a bit higher on the mysql process itself (especially for days that reporting and queries are heavy) helps a lot

- of course, both on Linux and Windows boxes, a gigabit network and proper switch system would help

]]>