Hi,
I think you'll typically see that MySQL performs a great deal better on
Linux than it does on Windows. MySQL claims that it performs up to 50%
better on Unix based environments. That said, importing a huge table isn't
the best way to measure performance, and I wouldn't necessarily say that
MySQL on Windows 2k3 is 'bad' per se, but rather that MySQL runs much better
on Linux. Also, it's possible that a default installation on Windows is less
optimized than a default installation on Linux, given I suspect that MySQL
spends more time developing their Unix based servers. If you're really
committed to running on Windows you might want to spend some time
researching ways of optimizing your configuration.
We've been running MySQL on a Win 2k3 machine for almost a year now and we
serve up about 23 queries a second (which is not a lot) and have had no
problems at all.
Travis
On 5/2/05, John Fader <jfader(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/2/05, Joe Flowers <jflowers45(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I'll try making those changes and let you
know how it goes. Thanks for
your
quick response, it is greatly appreciated!
In a similar vein to Joe's problem, is it just me, or does MySQL
performance on Windows *really* suck?
On my 3GHz athlon XP box, importing that cur table took around 26
hours, whereas the same job on an inferior linux box took around 8.
Similarly, the same SQL query to count the rows in the cur table takes
0.1 seconds on linux and 6 minutes on windows.
Surely MySQL on windows can't be *this* bad? Both MySQLs are running
as default 4.x installations on otherwise unladen machines with ample
RAM. Does this match others' experiences?
--
John Fader
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l