Configuring MySQL for Low Memory VPS

I’ve found the following configuration helps when you’re trying to squeeze out as much memory from a VPS as possible.

 


[mysqld]
port = 3306
socket = /var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock
skip-locking
key_buffer = 16K
max_allowed_packet = 1M
table_cache = 4
sort_buffer_size = 64K
read_buffer_size = 256K
read_rnd_buffer_size = 256K
net_buffer_length = 2K
thread_stack = 64K

# For low memory, Berkeley DB should not be used so keep skip-bdb uncommented unless required
skip-bdb

# For low memory, InnoDB should not be used so keep skip-innodb uncommented unless required
skip-innodb

# Uncomment the following if you are using InnoDB tables
#innodb_data_home_dir = /var/lib/mysql/
#innodb_data_file_path = ibdata1:10M:autoextend
#innodb_log_group_home_dir = /var/lib/mysql/
#innodb_log_arch_dir = /var/lib/mysql/
# You can set .._buffer_pool_size up to 50 - 80 %
# of RAM but beware of setting memory usage too high
#innodb_buffer_pool_size = 16M
#innodb_additional_mem_pool_size = 2M
# Set .._log_file_size to 25 % of buffer pool size
#innodb_log_file_size = 5M
#innodb_log_buffer_size = 8M
#innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 1
#innodb_lock_wait_timeout = 50

[mysqldump]
quick
max_allowed_packet = 16M

[mysql]
no-auto-rehash
# Remove the next comment character if you are not familiar with SQL
#safe-updates

[isamchk]
key_buffer = 8M
sort_buffer_size = 8M

[myisamchk]
key_buffer = 8M
sort_buffer_size = 8M

[mysqlhotcopy]
interactive-timeout

 

0 Shares:
You May Also Like

Selecting the Fastest Ubuntu 18 Mirror

Run the following commands. wget http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/n/netselect/netselect_0.3.ds1-28+b1_amd64.debdpkg -i netselect_0.3.ds1-28+b1_amd64.deb https://askubuntu.com/questions/39922/how-do-you-select-the-fastest-mirror-from-the-command-line More from my siteTips and Tricks for Building Ubuntu…

AMD 64 2000+ vs Intel’s Atom: AMD’s 8-watt processor outperforms Intels Atom

Intel's Atom processor and AMD's 64 2000+ were pitted against each other. And the results were for once in favor of AMD.
In our Munich lab’s duel of the energy-savers, the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ beats the Intel Atom 230 in energy consumption and processing power. Each of the systems was based on a desktop platform. The Achilles heel of the Intel system is its old system platform with the 945GC chipset, while AMD offers a more modern 780G platform. The energy-saving solution from AMD offers more possibilities: it has three times as many SATA ports, possesses better onboard graphics performance, and can also support two monitors. Unlike the Intel solution, an HD resolution (1920x1200) with high picture quality is possible through DVI/HDMI ports. And early information suggests that the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ should cost close to $90.
Read the full article at tomshardware.com