On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 03:08:28PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > >On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 02:35:56PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > >> > >>>>I appreciate that you might be constrained by local requirements, but > >>>>it's really not meaningful to compare different mysql > >>>>versions if your goal is to study OS performance. > >>>It'd be a PITA to install the both versions. Maybe now, that the ports > >>>freeze is over, i can > >>>do something. But honestly, every mysql version was faster on linux, than > >>>eny on FreeBSD, > >>>even the .22 one was faster. We start work on Jan02, I will see what can I > >>>do. > >>Regardless, we need a stable baseline to compare to. > >Cannot do it sooner then january. Any recommended versions? > > Either 5.0.45 on both, or 5.0.51 on both, please. Ack.
> >>Still waiting for your sysbench command lines :) > >There were 2 scripts and a sources file with options: > >basicall that's everything. I know it's a but complex, but this was all > >behind it. > > OK, that was very important since you're changing defaults. For different configurations, yes. But every test is heterogenous. > > It looks like myisam is doing huge numbers of concurrent reads of the same > file which is running into exclusive locking in the kernel > (vnode interlock and lockbuilder mtxpool). Does it not do any caching of the > data in userspace but relies on querying into the kernel > every time? innodb doesn't have this behaviour. Sorry, but was this a rethorical kind of question, or was this addressed to me? :) If the later, then how do I find this out? Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise.
pgpOeoOF9ke7s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
