New to the community? Start here

the tool site

Greets:

i can’t access the tool site if you catch my meaning. It forwards me onto station193.com with a “Oops, you’re here my mistake, Accessing teh content via Ip address….” error.

thanks,

-drmike

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:01:53
  • Andrew
    • Champion of Loops

    Will do. However, the db scripts won’t be anything spectacular.

    Basically, i’ve decided to offer two sets of instructions. One for new sites and one for existing sites.

    The instructions for existing sites will basically just explain what tables need to be in which database. Other than a script to help you create the databases, users will be on their own to move the tables.

    The reason behind this is that if I were to make scripts to transfer the tables, i’d be spending more time on that than I would on improving the actual Multi-DB code. I’ve also said from the beginning that this would be for advanced users (who should be familiar with the command line and possibly rsync).

    Edit: It’s not that i’m flat out opposed to providing a script to move the tables. It’s just that I feel my time is better spent elsewhere at the moment.

    Thanks,

    Andrew

  • Luke
    • The Crimson Coder

    Makes sense to me, really.

    Here’s a thought I was having though. Mainly for 256+ DB’s.

    I wonder if it might be more “efficient” to be able to break up the connection information into say, for 256 db’s, 16 files.

    Where you only grab the file you need. With 256, to me that’s a ton of extra lines not needed on that load.

    Leaving global and vip info in the config file, and then when the blog id is parsed, it will know if it’s db “aa”, db “43”, or db “c9”.

    Then it could include the file a.db.php, 4.db.php, or c.db.php.

    Maybe it’s a non issue, really, but at least in my mind it makes sense if you only pull in a little bit of info, 1/16th of the lines, then the whole kit-n-caboodle.

    Not a suggestion, I’m just curious. :wink:

  • Andrew
    • Champion of Loops

    For 256 I don’t think it would be necessary . It would only be ~1000 lines of code. Most WPMU sites have way more bloat than that.

    However, it’s something worth pursuing for 4096. In fact, it would probably be necessary. Then again, i’m curious if it’s something I need to worry about. After all 256 will be enough for ~8 million blogs (probably a bit less). If someone plans on needing to support more than 8 million blogs, I sure hope they have a developer and sysadmin on payroll.

    Thanks,

    Andrew

  • Luke
    • The Crimson Coder

    Well, in terms of literally how much data 1 db can hold, yes.

    But, again going with efficiency/overhead, what’s better? 1 big db, or 2 that are half that size?

    If I were to query the single db, then run the same query to the one of the 2 that has that info in it, which query would eat less?

    Not that I’m arguing, I’m just curiously discussing. On a single query, it might not be much of a difference, but even if there were say, a 2%-3% difference, that would add up eventually. At least, I think it would.

    I mean, literally, is it quicker to read through 8k files in a dir, or 16k?

    Is it easier to pull crap out of 1 big honkin table with 1m rows, or from a table with 10k?

    Needless to say, this is something I’ve been pondering for quite a while.

    Some DBA’s I’ve talked to, say go with bigger tables, some say go with more tables/db’s.

    OK, now I’m getting into generalization, but still it’s something I’ve thought about pretty extensively, and picked about any brain willing to discuss it.

    Although, the same goes for files too, and including 10k lines for php to compile/parse when you only need 3k lines.

    I certainly won’t disagree that MU does end up with a lot of bloat, and it’s not hard to increase it without fully knowing what you’re doing.

    Edit: maybe since we’re getting off topic, I’ll take this part of the discussion back to our little advanced site.

  • Sudar
    • WPMU DEV Initiate

    @Andrew,

    That’s because it doesn’t exist yet. Actually it won’t ever exist because i’ve decided to just package a few db scripts with the multi-db code.

    Can you let me know whether these db scripts are there in the current release. (I couldn’t find them). If no can you let me know when they will be available. Thanks!