this is my first time using MySQL, and I really have no idea what innodb is
(but i will shortly thanks to google). But no, i suppose I’m not using it
cause none of the innodb_ options are set in /etc/my.cnf
-r-----Original Message-----
From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@dev.de.cw.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 8:57 AM
To: Ryan Wheaton
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.0 Speed
On Tue, May 06, 2003, Ryan Wheaton wrote:
is it /etc/my.cnf?
cause i don’t have ANY of those option variables in there… i guess that
might help. (sorry about the double post)
innodb_data_file_path=/usr/local/var/mysql
Are you using InnoDB at all ? It requires the innodb_data_file_path
to be set.
,eM""=. a"-. Michael van Elst
dWWMWM" - :GM==; mlelstv@dev.de.cw.net
:WWMWMw=–. "W=’ cable & wireless
9WWMm==-.
“-Wmw-” CABLE & WIRELESS
Hi Ryan,
this is my first time using MySQL, and I really have no idea what innodb is
(but i will shortly thanks to google). But no, i suppose I’m not using it
cause none of the innodb_ options are set in /etc/my.cnf
They weren’t in mine either, however a quote from the MySQL manual:
7.5.2 InnoDB in MySQL Version 3.23:
“From MySQL version 4.0, InnoDB is enabled by default.”
hi folks,
we had the same speed problems described by Simon Woodward.
we have a test install of RT 2.0.11 and RT 3-0-2pre3 on the same machine,
both with mod_perl on a mysql-db.
the old rt2 installation, used for testing (~200 tickets, ~10 user) is
muuuch faster than rt3. as simon says “everything, from logging in, to
displaying a ticket” is so slow that we decided to keep rt2 (for now).
mysql version is 3.23.41
i’m not in the office right now so i can’t give any detailed mysql set-up.
'course i will provide it, if needed.
but i guess this can’t be the problem since the rt2 instance uses the same
db. any db improvements therefore should speed up rt2 also, right?
cu
andreas
Andreas Wahlfeldt
subshell GmbH
Weidenallee 1
20357 Hamburg
t +49.40. 431 362-25
f +49.40. 431 362-29
e awahlfeldt@subshell.com
For what it is worth…
We use the exact same system, upgraded from RT2 to RT3 (on clean databases),
and have no problems what so ever. RT3 actually seem faster a little bit.
We use a PIII 850Mhz with 1GB Ram on MySQL (no InnoDB).
Hi All,
but i guess this can’t be the problem since the rt2 instance uses the same
db. any db improvements therefore should speed up rt2 also, right?
This is my take, I’m using MySQL 4.0.12, so its interesting to see you get it
on 3.23.41. The only difference for me between RT2 and RT3 is that RT3 is using
InnoDB where has RT2 was using MyISAM tables. Everything else, (box, spec,
apache, perl, etc, etc, etc) is exactly the same.
Weird.
Cheers,
Simon.
Hi All,
From experience, InnoDB is severely resource intensive. We used it in the
past, and after it brought our systems to a virtual crawl, reverted back to
the normal MySQL tables…
I can accept it maybe InnoDB, purely taking the attitude that I haven’t ever
used it before 
… It wasn’t something I chose, just something that I
discovered whilst trying to see what the problem was.
I discovered that MySQL 4 enables InnoDB by default and that the default schema
Jesse uses to create the RT3 set of tables, sets the tables type to be InnoDB.
I’ll have to investigate if there is a way of converting back to MyISAM and
see if that fixes the problem I think, as its all I have to go on at the moment.
Cheers,
Simon.
I’ll have to investigate if there is a way of converting back to MyISAM
and
see if that fixes the problem I think, as its all I have to go on at the
moment.
ALTER TABLE table_name TYPE=MyISAM/InnoDB/Whatever
It does work pretty well…
This one time, at band camp, Simon Woodward wrote:
DBIx::SearchBuilder 0.80...found
That’s the old slow version, am I right? You want at least 0.81_4 if my
memory serves me correctly.
Your slowness sounds exactly the same as the Postgres performance I
experience, so I suspect that it is because InnoDB does much more in the way
of data integrity checking than the default mysql backend.
jaq@spacepants.org http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
Figured I would ask quickly before I go ahead and do it …
I am currently running an old version of rt (1.7) and I am looking at
upgrading to 3.01 but I want to install 3.01 and have a look at it first and
make sure it is going to fit our needs before trashing the old set up ie. I
am doing a new install not using the upgrade utils. So my question is will
having a 3.01 install on the same machine as an older version in anyway
effect the operation of the previous version (that you know of)?
thanks
Matt
ALTER TABLE table_name TYPE=MyISAM/InnoDB/Whatever
Okay, didn’t work 
Well, translating the tables to MyISAM worked, no problem, however its still
running like a dog
Also, thanks to Jamie Wilkinson DBIx::SearchBuilder did need an upgrade
… unfortunately that didn’t help either
So I’d like to open up the floor for suggestions again, as now the only
difference is between the RT2 and RT3 codebase :-(.
Cheers for all the input so far guys,
Simon.
Still browsing about this one … have just found :
mysqladmin -u root -p extended-status
| Handler_read_rnd_next | 135533867 |
Handler_read_rnd_next : Number of requests to read the next row in the
datafile. This will be high if you are doing a lot of table scans.
Generally this suggests that your tables are not properly indexed or
that your queries are not written to take advantage of the indexes you
have.
Any thoughts on this ???
Cheers,
Simon.
Simon Woodward sw-lists@onyx.net
Onyx Internet
hate to send again but there was no response last time and I will be acting on
this tomorrow so would like to know any pitfalls before I continue.
hate to send again but there was no response last time and I will be
acting on
this tomorrow so would like to know any pitfalls before I continue.
Figured I would ask quickly before I go ahead and do it …
I am currently running an old version of rt (1.7) and I am looking at
upgrading to 3.01 but I want to install 3.01 and have a look at it
first
and make sure it is going to fit our needs before trashing the old
set up
ie. I am doing a new install not using the upgrade utils. So my
question is
will having a 3.01 install on the same machine as an older version in
anyway effect the operation of the previous version (that you know
of)?
You cannot do this with mod_perl on the same apache instance. But if
You can setup another apache on another port or use fastcgi or
speedycgi for RT, there should be no problem. I don’t know if rt 1.7 is
an early rt 2 beta, but if that is tha case, You could possibly import
the old tickets as well.
Regards,
Harald
Harald Wagener * FCB/Wilkens * An der Alster 42 * 20099 Hamburg
will having a 3.01 install on the same machine as an older version in
anyway effect the operation of the previous version (that you know
of)?
You cannot do this with mod_perl on the same apache instance. But if
You can setup another apache on another port or use fastcgi or
speedycgi for RT, there should be no problem. I don’t know if rt 1.7 is
an early rt 2 beta, but if that is tha case, You could possibly import
the old tickets as well.
hmm…there was never a 1.7 version of rt (the pre-2 series stopped at 1.3),
so I think it’s actually version 1.0.7, the last stable version of rt 1.0. In
this case you can get away with running 1.0 and 3.0 on the same server as
1.0.x doesn’t require a mod_perl instance ( the configuation can be as simple
as
alias /webrt/ “/opt/rt/lib/images/”
ScriptAlias /rt/ “/opt/rt/bin/cgi/”)
You’ll probably have more trouble trying to get the appropriate versions of
the perl modules installed. To upgrade the data, install rt 2.0.15 on the
same server, upgrade rt 1 → rt 2 using the import-1.0-to-2.0 script
available from the rt2-contrib directory at www.fsck.com, then use the
rt2-to-rt3 tool to migrate from rt2 → rt3. Takes a while but in my
experience worked perfectly.
cheers
john