Hiya

I work for a pretty large hosting company, and we have some clients that you could call "in demand clients" (Well .... here where I live anyway :) ).

We already making use of heartbeat for high availability etc. But the one area that we have not tackled is load balancing.

I just read the following, which makes use of mysql proxy.

http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/04/mysql-load-balancing-and-read-write.html

I would like to ask, does anyone make use of mysqlproxy in production, and if so, are you using it under "heavy load".
How do you find how it performance under load.

If anyone can share their failures, successors or even just thoughts and opinions on mysql-proxy (even SQL load balancing in general), I would be most grateful.

Kind Regards
Brent Clark

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=archiver@[Protected]

Hi Brent

You can visit the below link.

http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/

<http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/>
Thanks,
Krishna

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Brent Clark <brentgclarklist@[Protected]>wrote:

> Hiya
>
> I work for a pretty large hosting company, and we have some clients that
> you could call "in demand clients" (Well .... here where I live anyway :) ).
>
> We already making use of heartbeat for high availability etc. But the one
> area that we have not tackled is load balancing.
>
> I just read the following, which makes use of mysql proxy.
>
>
> http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/04/mysql-load-balancing-and-read-write.html
>
> I would like to ask, does anyone make use of mysqlproxy in production, and
> if so, are you using it under "heavy load".
> How do you find how it performance under load.
>
> If anyone can share their failures, successors or even just thoughts and
> opinions on mysql-proxy (even SQL load balancing in general), I would be
> most grateful.
>
> Kind Regards
> Brent Clark
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=prajapatikc@[Protected]

Bah, just spilled coffee on my keyboard.

I never was a big fan of mysqlproxy, but this is almost inconceivable. The
next genius to suggest it for our environment had better have asbestos
underwear.

Thanks for the link, Krishna.


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <
prajapatikc@[Protected]> wrote:

> Hi Brent
>
> You can visit the below link.
>
>
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
>
> <
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
> >
> Thanks,
> Krishna
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Brent Clark <brentgclarklist@[Protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hiya
> >
> > I work for a pretty large hosting company, and we have some clients that
> > you could call "in demand clients" (Well .... here where I live anyway :)
> ).
> >
> > We already making use of heartbeat for high availability etc. But the one
> > area that we have not tackled is load balancing.
> >
> > I just read the following, which makes use of mysql proxy.
> >
> >
> >
> http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/04/mysql-load-balancing-and-read-write.html
> >
> > I would like to ask, does anyone make use of mysqlproxy in production,
> and
> > if so, are you using it under "heavy load".
> > How do you find how it performance under load.
> >
> > If anyone can share their failures, successors or even just thoughts and
> > opinions on mysql-proxy (even SQL load balancing in general), I would be
> > most grateful.
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Brent Clark
> >
> > --
> > MySQL General Mailing List
> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> > To unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=prajapatikc@[Protected]
> >
> >
>



--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

On 11/03/2010 16:52, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> Hi Brent
>
> You can visit the below link.
>
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/

Well thats disappointing.

sigh
So what are we supposed to use for loadbalancing mysql.

Thank you for your reply.

Kind Regards
Brent Clark

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=archiver@[Protected]

On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Brent Clark wrote:

> On 11/03/2010 16:52, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
>> Hi Brent
>>
>> You can visit the below link.
>>
>> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
>
> Well thats disappointing.
>
> sigh
> So what are we supposed to use for loadbalancing mysql.
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Kind Regards
> Brent Clark

Brent,

Some clients (namely the JDBC driver, and the R-O-R adapter) have load balancing built in.

-Mark
--
Mark Matthews
Principal Software Developer - Enterprise Tools
Oracle
http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/monitor.html






--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=archiver@[Protected]

Has MySQL Proxy been improved since that article was released?

I ask because although I have no personal experience with it I do know of a
big UK based online payment processing company who use MySQL Proxy with
MySQL 5.1 in production very successfully.


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegivamp@[Protected]>wrote:

> Bah, just spilled coffee on my keyboard.
>
> I never was a big fan of mysqlproxy, but this is almost inconceivable. The
> next genius to suggest it for our environment had better have asbestos
> underwear.
>
> Thanks for the link, Krishna.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <
> prajapatikc@[Protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Brent
> >
> > You can visit the below link.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
> >
> > <
> >
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
> > >
> > Thanks,
> > Krishna
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Brent Clark <brentgclarklist@[Protected]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hiya
> > >
> > > I work for a pretty large hosting company, and we have some clients
> that
> > > you could call "in demand clients" (Well .... here where I live anyway
> :)
> > ).
> > >
> > > We already making use of heartbeat for high availability etc. But the
> one
> > > area that we have not tackled is load balancing.
> > >
> > > I just read the following, which makes use of mysql proxy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/04/mysql-load-balancing-and-read-write.html
> > >
> > > I would like to ask, does anyone make use of mysqlproxy in production,
> > and
> > > if so, are you using it under "heavy load".
> > > How do you find how it performance under load.
> > >
> > > If anyone can share their failures, successors or even just thoughts
> and
> > > opinions on mysql-proxy (even SQL load balancing in general), I would
> be
> > > most grateful.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards
> > > Brent Clark
> > >
> > > --
> > > MySQL General Mailing List
> > > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> > > To unsubscribe:
> > > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=prajapatikc@[Protected]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Bier met grenadyn
> Is als mosterd by den wyn
> Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
> Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

Take a look at haProxy. It can be combined with some scripts to
loadbalance mysql.
http://www.alexwilliams.ca/blog/2009/08/10/using-haproxy-for-mysql-failover-and-redundancy/
We use it at Open Query for a similar case.

Cheers,

Walter Heck

Engineer @ Open Query
http://openquery.com | http://openquery.com/blog |

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:09, John Daisley <daisleyjohn@[Protected]> wrote:
> Has MySQL Proxy been improved since that article was released?
>
> I ask because although I have no personal experience with it I do know of a
> big UK based online payment processing company who use MySQL Proxy with
> MySQL 5.1 in production very successfully.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegivamp@[Protected]>wrote:
>
>> Bah, just spilled coffee on my keyboard.
>>
>> I never was a big fan of mysqlproxy, but this is almost inconceivable. The
>> next genius to suggest it for our environment had better have asbestos
>> underwear.
>>
>> Thanks for the link, Krishna.
>>
>>

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=archiver@[Protected]

Hi Walter,

I have tried and tested haproxy (ver 1.3). But it doesn't work to my
expectation. May be newer version (1.4) works better.

Brent try and check

http://sqlrelay.sourceforge.net/sqlrelay/

http://www.cherokee-project.com/
http://www.alobbs.com/1344/MySQL_asynchronous_balancing_with_HTTP_JSON.html


Thanks,
Krishna

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Walter Heck - OlinData.com <
lists@[Protected]> wrote:

> Take a look at haProxy. It can be combined with some scripts to
> loadbalance mysql.
>
> http://www.alexwilliams.ca/blog/2009/08/10/using-haproxy-for-mysql-failover-and-redundancy/
> We use it at Open Query for a similar case.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Walter Heck
>
> Engineer @ Open Query
> http://openquery.com | http://openquery.com/blog |
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:09, John Daisley <daisleyjohn@[Protected]>
> wrote:
> > Has MySQL Proxy been improved since that article was released?
> >
> > I ask because although I have no personal experience with it I do know of
> a
> > big UK based online payment processing company who use MySQL Proxy with
> > MySQL 5.1 in production very successfully.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegivamp@[Protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Bah, just spilled coffee on my keyboard.
> >>
> >> I never was a big fan of mysqlproxy, but this is almost inconceivable.
> The
> >> next genius to suggest it for our environment had better have asbestos
> >> underwear.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link, Krishna.
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=prajapatikc@[Protected]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Brent Clark <brentgclarklist@[Protected]>wrote:

> On 11/03/2010 16:52, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
>
>> Hi Brent
>>
>> You can visit the below link.
>>
>>
>> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
>>
>
> Well thats disappointing.
>
> sigh
> So what are we supposed to use for loadbalancing mysql.
>

Throw plenty of servers at it :-) If you put three servers behind the proxy,
you'll get the same performance as a single server, every additional server
is performance benefit :-D

Seriously, though, I don't have much faith in these kind of things (in the
context of read/write splitting, that is), because the proxy can never know
wether there'll be a write-request in the session without notification from
the client anyways. If you have to modify your application anyway, just do
it toroughly (you have to fish out the connects that will write in either
case, so that's half the work done) and make your application fully
slave-aware. That also allows you to tighten security by assigning a
select-only user for the read connections, diminishing the chances of a
succesfull sql injection.

If you're wondering about loadbalancing between read-only slaves, you don't
need a SQL aware proxy, just balance at level 4 using ldirectord or a
hardware loadbalancer with sticky sessions.


--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

Hi all,

The below link shows the benchmark between different web servers ( apache,
niginx, cherokee).

http://lists.octality.com/pipermail/cherokee/2009-May/010343.html
*http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/ab/2009-05-16/*

Conclusion of Above Benchmarks

*It seems that Cherokee continues being the faster among the
web**servers. According to this benchmark, Cherokee is, for instance,
79% **faster than Apache, and 18% faster than nginx.*

Thanks,
Krishna



On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegivamp@[Protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Brent Clark <brentgclarklist@[Protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > On 11/03/2010 16:52, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Brent
> >>
> >> You can visit the below link.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/06/09/mysql-proxy-urgh-performance-and-scalability/
> >>
> >
> > Well thats disappointing.
> >
> > sigh
> > So what are we supposed to use for loadbalancing mysql.
> >
>
> Throw plenty of servers at it :-) If you put three servers behind the
> proxy,
> you'll get the same performance as a single server, every additional server
> is performance benefit :-D
>
> Seriously, though, I don't have much faith in these kind of things (in the
> context of read/write splitting, that is), because the proxy can never know
> wether there'll be a write-request in the session without notification from
> the client anyways. If you have to modify your application anyway, just do
> it toroughly (you have to fish out the connects that will write in either
> case, so that's half the work done) and make your application fully
> slave-aware. That also allows you to tighten security by assigning a
> select-only user for the read connections, diminishing the chances of a
> succesfull sql injection.
>
> If you're wondering about loadbalancing between read-only slaves, you don't
> need a SQL aware proxy, just balance at level 4 using ldirectord or a
> hardware loadbalancer with sticky sessions.
>
>
> --
> Bier met grenadyn
> Is als mosterd by den wyn
> Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
> Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <
prajapatikc@[Protected]> wrote:

> The below link shows the benchmark between different web servers ( apache,
> niginx, cherokee).
>

Irrelevant to this list, but I'll bite: there is no detail whatsoever on the
configuration of the various software. It also only tests the repeated
delivery of one html file, presumably static and identical across the
servers. Were the servers forked or threaded, how many concurrent clients
did they allow, what modules were loaded, how do the respective servers
respond to different filesizes, to various kinds of dynamic content, et
cetera ad nauseam.

All we know from this, is that Cherokee is your best choice if you want to
serve a site with only one, static page without images.



--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel