On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 09:02 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > J.A. Magallón wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:31:29 -0500, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hiro Yoshioka wrote: > > >>> Another question. When the number of threads exceeds the number of > >>> CPU cores, we may get a lot of idle time. Then a workaround of > >>> MySQL is that do not creat threads which exceeds the number > >>> of CPU cores. Is it right? > >> Not really, that would make it impossible for MySQL to > >> handle more simultaneous database queries than the system > >> has CPUs. > >> > > > > I don't know myqsl internals, but you assume one thread per query. > > If its more like Apache, one long living thread for several connections ? > > Yes, they are longer lived client connections. One thread > per connection, just like Apache. > > > Its the same to answer 4+4 queries than 8 at half the speed, isn't it ? > > That still doesn't fix the potential Linux problem that this > benchmark identified. > > To clarify: I don't care as much about MySQL performance as > I care about identifying and fixing this potential bug in > Linux.
Here http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/mysql.html Kris Kennaway talks about a patch for FreeBSD 7 which addresses poor scalability of file descriptor locking and that it's responsible for almost all of the performance and scaling improvements. Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
