MySQL Forums
Forum List  »  General

Re: trillion records?
Posted by: Mirabell Stoffen
Date: September 06, 2011 10:44AM

> > ds3500
> Nice. Since it can handle RAID-5/6/10, you are
> protected against a single-drive failure, and many
> cases of multiple drive failures.
>
> RAID-10 cuts the capacity essentially by half.
> So, the device would have a max around 200TB, with
> the big, slow, 2TB drives, and all 192 expansion
> bays populated.
>
> RAID 5 or 6 is more like 20% lost to parity
> (depends on the details). The capacity here is
> more like 300TB.
>
> Loss of the device, or power, or the building it
> is in, or ... -- Those are other failure scenarios
> to either consider, or sweep under the rug.
>
> Battery-backed cache in the RAID is a must.
>
> For computing performance:
> A disk drive can handle 100-200 I/Os per second.
> RAID striping -- the striping factor gives you
> about that much improvement -- IF there is enough
> parallelism in the application.
>
> SSDs are very expensive, and do not have the
> capacity, even in the ds3500 to handle your size
> requirement. But they can get on the order of
> 1000 I/Os per sec.
>
> After striping (and/or SSDs), the next way to get
> more _bandwidth_ to disk is by sharding --
> spreading the data among multiple machines.
>
> Sharding does NOT provide protection against data
> loss, unless you explicitly store every record on
> more than one shard. Sharding is complicated
> enough; adding redundancy makes it even more
> complicated.
>
> Sounds like the box, drives, connectors, etc,
> would cost $50-100K ?

Well, first sorry for replying late.
And yes budget is around $100k but SAN is really too costly to be considered.

First I need to clear that MySQL is even able to handle that load of data if that data is spread into 10 machines each with 20 2TB disk (40TB) so that instead of employing RAID10 why not go with node to node replication and 400TB total space would be enough to hold even 2 copies easily?

If now we are talking about multiple machines then what you think about MySQL cluster version? Would it be capable to handle that amount of data.

Or I should start considering NOSQL solutions?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2011 10:50AM by Mirabell Stoffen.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject
Written By
Posted
August 05, 2011 01:18AM
August 05, 2011 07:51AM
August 07, 2011 02:25AM
August 07, 2011 05:58PM
September 06, 2011 11:06AM
September 07, 2011 09:18AM
August 09, 2011 01:01PM
August 09, 2011 07:57PM
Re: trillion records?
September 06, 2011 10:44AM


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.

Content reproduced on this site is the property of the respective copyright holders. It is not reviewed in advance by Oracle and does not necessarily represent the opinion of Oracle or any other party.