Webmaster Forum Rules | Posting Guide | Contact Us | Testimonials | Contributing Geek Program | Advertise on Geek/Talk
Welcome to the GeekTalk Webmaster Discussion Forums from GeekVillage.com

Click Here To Register. It's Free!

Go Back   geek/talk: Signature-free discourse for serious web publishers > YOUR FOUNDATION: Web Hosting & Domains > Web Hosting Discussion
User Name
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-18-2001, 06:04 AM   #31

singloon's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,167

Originally posted by demae
singloon: What's the difference between your configuration and the standard configuration? Does the standard configuration have insufficient buffer size or something? What about the "skip-locking" option---what does that do?
by default the buffer sizes are very small indeed...

in telnet as root issue this command

mysqladmin -u root -p variables

which will output your server's current variables

for info on skip locking check http://www.mysql.com/documentation/m...rformance.html

my.cnf info - http://www.mysql.com/doc/O/p/Option_files.html

in your MySQL installation directory (typically `/usr/local/mysql'), there are sample configuration files for small, medium, large, and very large systems. You can copy `my-xxxx.cnf' to your home directory (rename the copy to `.my.cnf').

Use the --skip-locking MySQL option to avoid external locking. Note that this will not impact MySQL's functionality as long as you only run one server. Just remember to take down the server (or lock relevant parts) before you run myisamchk. On some system this switch is mandatory because the external locking does not work in any case. The --skip-locking option is on by default when compiling with MIT-pthreads, because flock() isn't fully supported by MIT-pthreads on all platforms. It's also on default for Linux as Linux file locking are not yet safe. The only case when you can't use --skip-locking is if you run multiple MySQL servers (not clients) on the same data, or run myisamchk on the table without first flushing and locking the mysqld server tables first. You can still use LOCK TABLES/UNLOCK TABLES even if you are using --skip-locking
alot of this is from mysql.com

singloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2001, 02:36 AM   #32
Registered User
fatale's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 231

I'm wondering what 4WebSpace/Tera-Byte is going to do about their prices? I would certainly like to see something closer to what RackShack offers. Right now I have two RAQ3s with 4WS and as much as I hate changing hosts when I like the quality of service they provide, I can't afford to pay $200/month for something I can have for $100 with faster CPU more disk space and extra 100 Gb of traffic...
fatale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2001, 11:06 AM   #33
Registered User
notibrian's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pg, Malaysia
Posts: 770

hopefully 4webspace will allow us to upgrade to raq4i server for a setup fees and the monthly fees remain the same when cobalt stops providing patches i think somewhere around next year. i like the services at 4webspace as well, but really can't aford to pay $199/month for a raq4i when cobalt stops providing supports.
notibrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2001, 11:54 AM   #34
Registered User
fatale's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 231

Well, I just got a reply from their sales -- they are NOT planning to change their prices any time soon and they are NOT going to match RackShack offer (even partially) for their existing customers. Too bad, as I like their quality of service, but it simply doesn't make sense to pay $199 for two RAQ3 I have with them right now (cheapest way to get 200 Gb per month with them), when I can pay $99/month, get a faster CPU and extra 100 Gb of traffic. I'm going to wait another week just in case Tera-Byte decides to change their mind, and then I'm switching to RackShack...

I know that someone from Tera-Byte staff probably reads these forums. Care to comment?
fatale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2001, 12:08 PM   #35
Registered User
Rendelius's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 170

I have a raq with 4webspace and one with rackshack.

Next month, I will have two with rackshack, unless something changes with the conditions at 4webspace. Don't get me wrong, they offer good service, but my raq there comes close to the 100GB limit, and I don't want to spend 3$ per GB in excess when I can have 200 additional GB for the price of 100 at Rackshack.
Rendelius is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Massive bandwidth - No one can match RackShack? demae Web Hosting Discussion 4 01-02-2002 05:36 PM
Another crazy offer from rackshack!!! notibrian Web Hosting Discussion 23 11-27-2001 05:55 PM
RackShack -- what a nightmare! fatale Web Hosting Discussion 4 09-06-2001 06:31 PM
RACKSHACK WENT CRAZY!! 300 GB for $100 demae Web Hosting Discussion 3 08-30-2001 05:45 PM
Another Rackshack Crazy offer!!!! notibrian Web Hosting Discussion 3 08-16-2001 02:24 PM

Please support our advertisers. They ensure our survival.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.

GeekVillage.com is copyright © 1998-2015 Curiosity Cave - Science gifts for clever kids. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.