Re: Specific benchmarking tool
Johan, Yes, there are built in parsers for different formats, for example I was using the general log. mk-log-player --split Thread_id --type genlog (genlog was added the other day and is only in trunk so far) http://www.maatkit.org/doc/mk-log-player.html --type type: string; group: Split The type of log to --split (default slowlog). The permitted types are binlog Split a binary log file. slowlog Split a log file in any varation of MySQL slow-log format. Cheers, Ewen On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Ewen, Do you need a specific log format or setting ? I'm debugging the tool, and it uses ;\n# as record separator, which is entirely not consistent with the log format I get out of the mysql log. Does it perchance try to parse zero-execution-time slowlogs instead of the regular log ? On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: hmm, I got segfaults. i,ll check after the weekend. On 11/13/09, ewen fortune ewen.fort...@gmail.com wrote: Johan, What does? mk-log-player? - I just used it to split and play back 8G, no problem. Ewen On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: It seems to have a problem with multi-gigabyte files :-D On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Ooo, shiny ! Thanks, mate :-) On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, ewen fortune ewen.fort...@gmail.com wrote: Johan, The very latest version of mk-log-player can do that. If you get the version from trunk: wget http://www.maatkit.org/trunk/mk-log-player mk-log-player --split Thread_id --type genlog Cheers, Ewen On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Specific benchmarking tool
Yeah, I figured that out in the mean time :-) I was putting the log type right after --split, and the damn thing doesn't think of throwing an 'unknown field' error :-) It's working now, thanks a lot ! On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:27 PM, ewen fortune ewen.fort...@gmail.comwrote: Johan, Yes, there are built in parsers for different formats, for example I was using the general log. mk-log-player --split Thread_id --type genlog (genlog was added the other day and is only in trunk so far) http://www.maatkit.org/doc/mk-log-player.html --type type: string; group: Split The type of log to --split (default slowlog). The permitted types are binlog Split a binary log file. slowlog Split a log file in any varation of MySQL slow-log format. Cheers, Ewen On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Ewen, Do you need a specific log format or setting ? I'm debugging the tool, and it uses ;\n# as record separator, which is entirely not consistent with the log format I get out of the mysql log. Does it perchance try to parse zero-execution-time slowlogs instead of the regular log ? On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: hmm, I got segfaults. i,ll check after the weekend. On 11/13/09, ewen fortune ewen.fort...@gmail.com wrote: Johan, What does? mk-log-player? - I just used it to split and play back 8G, no problem. Ewen On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: It seems to have a problem with multi-gigabyte files :-D On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Ooo, shiny ! Thanks, mate :-) On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, ewen fortune ewen.fort...@gmail.com wrote: Johan, The very latest version of mk-log-player can do that. If you get the version from trunk: wget http://www.maatkit.org/trunk/mk-log-player mk-log-player --split Thread_id --type genlog Cheers, Ewen On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=vegiv...@tuxera.be
Specific benchmarking tool
Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan
Re: Specific benchmarking tool
take a look at mysqlslap: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/mysqlslap.html Walter On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 22:33, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Specific benchmarking tool
Johan, The very latest version of mk-log-player can do that. If you get the version from trunk: wget http://www.maatkit.org/trunk/mk-log-player mk-log-player --split Thread_id --type genlog Cheers, Ewen On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Specific benchmarking tool
I did :-) Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any option that suggests mysqlslap can easily replay a query log ? On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Walter Heck - OlinData.com li...@olindata.com wrote: take a look at mysqlslap: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/mysqlslap.html Walter On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 22:33, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=vegiv...@tuxera.be
Re: Specific benchmarking tool
Ooo, shiny ! Thanks, mate :-) On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, ewen fortune ewen.fort...@gmail.comwrote: Johan, The very latest version of mk-log-player can do that. If you get the version from trunk: wget http://www.maatkit.org/trunk/mk-log-player mk-log-player --split Thread_id --type genlog Cheers, Ewen On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for a Mysql benchmarking/stresstesting tool that can generate a workload based on standard Mysql full query log files. The idea is to verify performance of real production loads on various database setups. Does anyone know of such a tool, free or paying ? Thx, Johan
Re: MySQL Benchmarking
Alex, Thanks a bunch for the insight and for proving the links to the following benchmarking tools. Unfortunately, business is requiring that each database live in it's own instance, so it sounds like moving in the direction of having multiple servers and spreading the data around would be the best idea. Again, thanks. CL At 06:39 PM 3/15/2007, Alex Greg wrote: On 3/14/07, Clyde Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Sun Fire E2900 System clock frequency: 150 MHZ Memory size: 65536 Megabytes CPU: 12 @ 1200 MHz I'm looking for a tool that will allow us to determine the max number of databases that can run in a single instance of MySQL on a pretty beefy server( Spec above). In total we will have about ~40 MySQL instances running on this server. Each instance of MySQL, there will have between 30-60 individual databases supporting an OLTP application. I know that there are no know internal limits that MySQL have regarding the number of databases that can be created, but I would like get my hands on a tool that can simulate the number of databases and identify where we would potentially run into performance issues. As I mentioned above, your performance issues are going to come not from the number of databases, but from (primarily) how well-designed your database tables and queries are, and (secondly) how you configure the mysql server(s). One important factor to bear in mind is that with 40 separate MySQL instances on the single 64GB server, you will have a maximum 1.6GB of RAM per instance (excluding memory used by the O/S and other applications). This will have to be divided up between the various memory buffers (key_buffer, innodb_buffer_pool, etc.) allocated by each mysql process, so you might want to reconsider if you really need to run 40 separate mysql processes, or whether all the databases can live in the same MySQL instance and thus probably make better use of the available RAM. With regards to stress-testing and benchmarking, two popular tools for benchmarking MySQL servers are: Super Smack: http://vegan.net/tony/supersmack/ Sysbench: http://sysbench.sourceforge.net/ We need to determine whether to have multiple servers to support the ~40 instances or have all ~40 instances on the same machine. Any help of ideas would be greatly appreciated with this decision. I would be inclined to have separate machines, rather than put everything on one huge server. By spreading the data around, you are reducing the risk if the one mega-machine were to become unavailable, and also reducing resource contention (on the disks, CPU, RAM etc.). -- Alex *** Clyde Lewis Database Administrator General Parts, Inc. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL Benchmarking
On 3/14/07, Clyde Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Sun Fire E2900 System clock frequency: 150 MHZ Memory size: 65536 Megabytes CPU: 12 @ 1200 MHz I'm looking for a tool that will allow us to determine the max number of databases that can run in a single instance of MySQL on a pretty beefy server( Spec above). In total we will have about ~40 MySQL instances running on this server. Each instance of MySQL, there will have between 30-60 individual databases supporting an OLTP application. I know that there are no know internal limits that MySQL have regarding the number of databases that can be created, but I would like get my hands on a tool that can simulate the number of databases and identify where we would potentially run into performance issues. As I mentioned above, your performance issues are going to come not from the number of databases, but from (primarily) how well-designed your database tables and queries are, and (secondly) how you configure the mysql server(s). One important factor to bear in mind is that with 40 separate MySQL instances on the single 64GB server, you will have a maximum 1.6GB of RAM per instance (excluding memory used by the O/S and other applications). This will have to be divided up between the various memory buffers (key_buffer, innodb_buffer_pool, etc.) allocated by each mysql process, so you might want to reconsider if you really need to run 40 separate mysql processes, or whether all the databases can live in the same MySQL instance and thus probably make better use of the available RAM. With regards to stress-testing and benchmarking, two popular tools for benchmarking MySQL servers are: Super Smack: http://vegan.net/tony/supersmack/ Sysbench: http://sysbench.sourceforge.net/ We need to determine whether to have multiple servers to support the ~40 instances or have all ~40 instances on the same machine. Any help of ideas would be greatly appreciated with this decision. I would be inclined to have separate machines, rather than put everything on one huge server. By spreading the data around, you are reducing the risk if the one mega-machine were to become unavailable, and also reducing resource contention (on the disks, CPU, RAM etc.). -- Alex -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MySQL Benchmarking
Guys, System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Sun Fire E2900 System clock frequency: 150 MHZ Memory size: 65536 Megabytes CPU: 12 @ 1200 MHz I'm looking for a tool that will allow us to determine the max number of databases that can run in a single instance of MySQL on a pretty beefy server( Spec above). In total we will have about ~40 MySQL instances running on this server. Each instance of MySQL, there will have between 30-60 individual databases supporting an OLTP application. I know that there are no know internal limits that MySQL have regarding the number of databases that can be created, but I would like get my hands on a tool that can simulate the number of databases and identify where we would potentially run into performance issues. We need to determine whether to have multiple servers to support the ~40 instances or have all ~40 instances on the same machine. Any help of ideas would be greatly appreciated with this decision. Thanks in advance, *** Clyde Lewis Database Administrator General Parts, Inc. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benchmarking GUI tool
Hello, Does anybody know a Benchmarking GUI tool for MySQL under windows? Thanks, Mic signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Benchmarking
Dan Trainor wrote: I'm curious as to what you guys use for benchmarking nowadays. I'd like to benchmark preformance of an InnoDB database on a fancy new server, compared to an old degraded one. Hi Dan! I use SysBench for most things, also MyBench for a few things (from Jeremy Zawodny) as well as ApacheBench (ab), supersmack (really customizable), and have used httperf in the past. For general MySQL benchmarking, you can always run the MySQL benchmark suite (included in source distributions) on one machine and on the other, and see differences that way. Cheers, -- Jay Pipes Community Relations Manager, North America, MySQL Inc. Roaming North America, based in Columbus, Ohio email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mob: +1 614 406 1267 Are You MySQL Certified? http://www.mysql.com/certification Got Cluster? http://www.mysql.com/cluster -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benchmarking
Hi - It's been a short while since I've seen any discussion on this subject, and I'm wondering what's happened in this arena since then. I'm curious as to what you guys use for benchmarking nowadays. I'd like to benchmark preformance of an InnoDB database on a fancy new server, compared to an old degraded one. Thanks! -dant -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benchmarking/optimization of MySQL
Hello, for the last few days I've been running benchmarks from sql-bench directory and tunning server parameters and I have few questions. Firstly I would like to note that benchmarks were run on two different but similar machines: Machine ONE: Dual Xeon 2.4 533MHz FSB 4GB RAM SCSI raid 10 (controller from Adaptec) Reiserfs Linux 2.4.25-grsec MySQL 3.23.58 /etc/my.cnf is almost empty, server mostly uses defaults for given version This one is running Apache also but was tested when very lightly loaded (5req/s, 5queries/s) Machine TWO: Dual Xeon 2.4 400MHz FSB 2GB RAM SCSI raid 1 (controller from Adaptec) Reiserfs Linux 2.4.25-grsec MySQL 4.0.18 /etc/my.cnf is gracious, giving server enough resources - i guess This one is actually a mail server but is running MySQL for testing and comparison purposes. Both machines return similar results when doing hdparm on MySQLs' datadir disks (+/-2Mb for disk reads): Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.24 seconds =533.33 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.37 seconds = 46.72 MB/sec (Does somebody also think this is not enogh?) Running bonnie++ on machines also resulted in very similar results (results not included in this message). Load on machines was not noticeable at the time of benchmarking but machine ONE is generally considered more loaded than machine TWO. My questions have arisen from observations that in some results the older version of MySQL on more loaded machine was quite faster that the newer one. Running: ./test-alter-table --host=localhost --user=test --password=test --database=test --socket=/tmp/mysql.sock --server=MySQL --random --threads=10 gave following results: Test name ONE TWO - insert (1000) 0 1 alter_table_add (100) 614 create_index (8) 1 2 drop_index (8)2 3 alter_table_drop (91) 613 Total time 1533 After repeting tests for some time I believed these values are for real. So - is there any explanation why newer version alters table slower than older one? Running: ./test-create --host=localhost --user=test --password=test --database=test --socket=/tmp/mysql.sock --server=MySQL --random --threads=10 gave following results: Test name ONE TWO - create_MANY_tables (1) 12 72 select_group_when_MANY_tables (1) 7 7 drop_table_when_MANY_tables (1) 3 3 create+drop (1)13 59 create_key+drop (1) 14 54 Total time 49195 Now these are what I call drastical difference. There were also some differences in test-insert set of tests but there machine TWO compensated some of it's loss with it's query cache so Total times were 1336(ONE) vs. 1084(TWO). But it had one most of iritating results: select_column+column (10) 12 20 Why is older version that faster in such a simple query? Also note that when I installed MySQL 3.23.58 to machine TWO with exactly same options as it is installed on machine ONE the results were almost identical - meaning hardware has no noticable impact whatsoever. Does anyone know where these (and other) differences come from? PS: I would be very pleased if I could see hardware description / my.cnf / sql-bench results from you to see if I am on the right way and how much headroom do I still have. (Currently my run-all-tests script finishes with just above 1500 seconds on server TWO. Details I will post tomorrow as this message is already way too long and it is 4o'clock here and I can already see my bed in front of me although it is still 15 km away:). Best regards, Bostjan Skufca system administrator Domenca d.o.o. Phone: +386 4 5835444 Fax: +386 4 5831999 http://www.domenca.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Benchmarking/optimization of MySQL
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 19:00, Bostjan Skufca (at) domenca.com wrote: Bostjan, At first I shall mention you have set up your experiment the hardest way for comments. You have different hardware, different MySQL versions and different MySQL settings. Normally you would like to change only one of them at the time to be able to analyze the difference better. Side Load also does not really benefits results accuracy, however if it is really light making a run several times and taking the best results might be reasonable. Most of your results can be explained by fsync() for .frm creation added in MySQL 4.0.18 which slows down CREATE/ALTER commands a bit, which is however not critical for production. I would also recommend you to get updated sql-bench version from public mysql-bench BitKeeper tree it has more benchmarks available. I have however no good explanations for you select col+col query. What is about results with same MySQL options (notes you need to supply them as some defaults were changed in MySQL 4.0, run show variables to find out these) Hello, for the last few days I've been running benchmarks from sql-bench directory and tunning server parameters and I have few questions. Firstly I would like to note that benchmarks were run on two different but similar machines: Machine ONE: Dual Xeon 2.4 533MHz FSB 4GB RAM SCSI raid 10 (controller from Adaptec) Reiserfs Linux 2.4.25-grsec MySQL 3.23.58 /etc/my.cnf is almost empty, server mostly uses defaults for given version This one is running Apache also but was tested when very lightly loaded (5req/s, 5queries/s) Machine TWO: Dual Xeon 2.4 400MHz FSB 2GB RAM SCSI raid 1 (controller from Adaptec) Reiserfs Linux 2.4.25-grsec MySQL 4.0.18 /etc/my.cnf is gracious, giving server enough resources - i guess This one is actually a mail server but is running MySQL for testing and comparison purposes. Both machines return similar results when doing hdparm on MySQLs' datadir disks (+/-2Mb for disk reads): Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.24 seconds =533.33 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.37 seconds = 46.72 MB/sec (Does somebody also think this is not enogh?) Running bonnie++ on machines also resulted in very similar results (results not included in this message). Load on machines was not noticeable at the time of benchmarking but machine ONE is generally considered more loaded than machine TWO. My questions have arisen from observations that in some results the older version of MySQL on more loaded machine was quite faster that the newer one. Running: ./test-alter-table --host=localhost --user=test --password=test --database=test --socket=/tmp/mysql.sock --server=MySQL --random --threads=10 gave following results: Test name ONE TWO - insert (1000) 0 1 alter_table_add (100) 614 create_index (8) 1 2 drop_index (8)2 3 alter_table_drop (91) 613 Total time 1533 After repeting tests for some time I believed these values are for real. So - is there any explanation why newer version alters table slower than older one? Running: ./test-create --host=localhost --user=test --password=test --database=test --socket=/tmp/mysql.sock --server=MySQL --random --threads=10 gave following results: Test name ONE TWO - create_MANY_tables (1) 12 72 select_group_when_MANY_tables (1) 7 7 drop_table_when_MANY_tables (1) 3 3 create+drop (1)13 59 create_key+drop (1) 14 54 Total time 49195 Now these are what I call drastical difference. There were also some differences in test-insert set of tests but there machine TWO compensated some of it's loss with it's query cache so Total times were 1336(ONE) vs. 1084(TWO). But it had one most of iritating results: select_column+column (10) 12 20 Why is older version that faster in such a simple query? Also note that when I installed MySQL 3.23.58 to machine TWO with exactly same options as it is installed on machine ONE the results were almost identical - meaning hardware has no noticable impact whatsoever. Does anyone know where these (and other) differences come from? PS: I would be very pleased if I could see hardware
Re: Benchmarking/optimization of MySQL
Bostjan Skufca (at) domenca.com wrote: Hello, for the last few days I've been running benchmarks from sql-bench directory and tunning server parameters and I have few questions. Firstly I would like to note that benchmarks were run on two different but similar machines: Machine ONE: Dual Xeon 2.4 533MHz FSB 4GB RAM SCSI raid 10 (controller from Adaptec) Reiserfs Linux 2.4.25-grsec MySQL 3.23.58 /etc/my.cnf is almost empty, server mostly uses defaults for given version This one is running Apache also but was tested when very lightly loaded (5req/s, 5queries/s) Machine TWO: Dual Xeon 2.4 400MHz FSB 2GB RAM SCSI raid 1 (controller from Adaptec) Reiserfs Linux 2.4.25-grsec MySQL 4.0.18 /etc/my.cnf is gracious, giving server enough resources - i guess This one is actually a mail server but is running MySQL for testing and comparison purposes. Both machines return similar results when doing hdparm on MySQLs' datadir disks (+/-2Mb for disk reads): Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.24 seconds =533.33 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.37 seconds = 46.72 MB/sec (Does somebody also think this is not enogh?) Running bonnie++ on machines also resulted in very similar results (results not included in this message). Load on machines was not noticeable at the time of benchmarking but machine ONE is generally considered more loaded than machine TWO. My questions have arisen from observations that in some results the older version of MySQL on more loaded machine was quite faster that the newer one. Machine one has a faster memory bus - that is a factor, although not a factor of 2-fold performance difference - I would expect the difference to be no more than 5%. A gracious my.cnf often does harm. Try using the same one in both configurations. And, newer version is not necessarily faster in every way - it just has more features, and is usually faster on some queries that have been an serious issue in the past version. -- Sasha Pachev Create online surveys at http://www.surveyz.com/ -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how-to: benchmarking and query analysis?
I've just finished reading through most of the MySQL Enterprise
Solutions book by Alexander Pachev and I think you might want to take
a look at it. There is a section that deals with testing and MySQL
benchmarking tools.
These tools are available in the mysql/sql-bench (if your MySQL was
configured --with-bench):
mysql-test-run is the standard test and is what MySQL AB uses for
regression testing
crash-me is, well, what it sounds like. you can use it to find the
limits of your mysql installation.
run-all-tests is a comprehensive single threaded benchmark suite
You can also download a multithreaded benchmark called mysqlsyseval
from www.wiley.com/compbooks/pachev, which was written by Alexander.
All in all, I highly recommend you get that book. I've only had it for
a few days and it's already become an invaluable reference.
- Gabriel
On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 07:07 AM, Hanno Fietz wrote:
Hello,
I would like to examine with as much detail as possible the following
aspects of my queries:
- Hows the total execution time distributed between disk reads /
writes
and cpu / memory usage?
- Hows the total execution time distributed between index search and
actually reading data?
- Among all the queries in my application, which queries / operations
are the most load-intensive ones?
If possible, I'd like to log my results for some time, while the system
is in use. So far, I've used EXPLAIN, the manual section on
optimisation
and the OS load statistics ('top') as well as some simple scripts of my
own for a rough estimation of what I'm doing. I've come a long way
compared to my first steps but I'll be damned if I can't get it faster
still, since my results are not yet what I believe MySQL can do. I'm
about to start learning how to use the benchmark suite and I would be
happy about any suggestions and instructions on how to perform a
detailed analysis of what MySQL is doing when my queries are processed.
Are there any tools? Would it be a good idea to write my own
benchmarking program? Any good suggestions for that?
Thanks,
Hanno
---
-
Hanno Fietz
dezem GmbH
Lohmeyerstr. 9
10587 Berlin
Tel.: 030 / 34 70 50 22
Fax: 030 / 34 70 50 21
www.dezem.de
---
-
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
how-to: benchmarking and query analysis?
Hello,
I would like to examine with as much detail as possible the following
aspects of my queries:
- Hows the total execution time distributed between disk reads / writes
and cpu / memory usage?
- Hows the total execution time distributed between index search and
actually reading data?
- Among all the queries in my application, which queries / operations
are the most load-intensive ones?
If possible, I'd like to log my results for some time, while the system
is in use. So far, I've used EXPLAIN, the manual section on optimisation
and the OS load statistics ('top') as well as some simple scripts of my
own for a rough estimation of what I'm doing. I've come a long way
compared to my first steps but I'll be damned if I can't get it faster
still, since my results are not yet what I believe MySQL can do. I'm
about to start learning how to use the benchmark suite and I would be
happy about any suggestions and instructions on how to perform a
detailed analysis of what MySQL is doing when my queries are processed.
Are there any tools? Would it be a good idea to write my own
benchmarking program? Any good suggestions for that?
Thanks,
Hanno
Hanno Fietz
dezem GmbH
Lohmeyerstr. 9
10587 Berlin
Tel.: 030 / 34 70 50 22
Fax: 030 / 34 70 50 21
www.dezem.de
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benchmarking
How can I benchmark the perfomance of Mysql with the following setup: Perl 5.8.0 (perl-DBI, perl-DBI-Mysql) mysql-3.23.54a-11 apache-2.0.40-21 mod_perl-1.99_07-5 I want to compare the perfomance of Mysql against that of Pg using my own data. And, how can I resolve : DBD::mysql::st execute failed: The table 'Attachments' is full at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/DBIx/SearchBuilder/Handle.pm My configuration is as follows: +++/etc/my.cnf+= [mysqld] datadir=/var/lib/mysql socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock #InnoDB innodb_data_file_path = rt3ibdata/ibdata1:2000M; innodb_data_home_dir = /var/lib/mysql [mysql.server] user=mysql basedir=/var/lib [safe_mysqld] err-log=/var/log/mysqld.log pid-file=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid +++/etc/my.cnf+= I have an additional 11Gig partition which is not is use. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Benchmarking
Mixo, you have to add another InnoDB data file. Also adjust other InnoDB parameters in my.cnf to get a good performance. http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html#InnoDB_start An advanced my.cnf example. Suppose you have a Linux computer with 2 GB RAM and three 60 GB hard disks (at directory paths `/', `/dr2' and `/dr3'). Below is an example of possible configuration parameters in my.cnf for InnoDB. Note that InnoDB does not create directories: you have to create them yourself. Use the Unix or MS-DOS mkdir command to create the data and log group home directories. [mysqld] # You can write your other MySQL server options here # ... innodb_data_home_dir = #Data files must be able to #hold your data and indexes innodb_data_file_path = /ibdata/ibdata1:2000M;/dr2/ibdata/ibdata2:2000M:autoextend #Set buffer pool size to #50 - 80 % of your computer's #memory, but make sure on Linux #x86 total memory usage is # 2 GB set-variable = innodb_buffer_pool_size=1G set-variable = innodb_additional_mem_pool_size=20M innodb_log_group_home_dir = /dr3/iblogs #.._log_arch_dir must be the same #as .._log_group_home_dir; starting #from 4.0.6, you can omit it #innodb_log_arch_dir = /dr3/iblogs set-variable = innodb_log_files_in_group=3 #Set the log file size to about #15 % of the buffer pool size set-variable = innodb_log_file_size=150M set-variable = innodb_log_buffer_size=8M #Set ..flush_log_at_trx_commit to #0 if you can afford losing #some last transactions innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1 set-variable = innodb_lock_wait_timeout=50 #innodb_flush_method=fdatasync #set-variable = innodb_thread_concurrency=5 Note that we have placed the two data files on different disks. InnoDB will fill the tablespace formed by the data files from bottom up. In some cases it will improve the performance of the database if all data is not placed on the same physical disk. Putting log files on a different disk from data is very often beneficial for performance. You can also use raw disk partitions (raw devices) as data files. In some Unixes they speed up i/o. See section 12.1 about how to specify them in my.cnf. http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html#Adding_and_removing 5 Adding and removing InnoDB data and log files To add a new data file to the tablespace you have to shut down your MySQL database, edit the my.cnf file, adding a new file to innodb_data_file_path, and then start MySQL again. If your last data file was defined with the keyword autoextend, then the procedure to edit my.cnf is the following. You have to look the size of the last data file, round the size downward to the closest multiple of 1024 * 1024 bytes (= 1 MB), and specify the rounded size explicitly in innodb_data_file_path. Then you can add another data file. Remember that only the last data file in the innodb_data_file_path can be specified as auto-extending. An example: We assume you had just one auto-extending data file ibdata1 first, and that file grew to 988 MB. Below a possible line after adding another auto-extending data file. innodb_data_home_dir = innodb_data_file_path = /ibdata/ibdata1:988M;/disk2/ibdata2:50M:autoextend Currently you cannot remove a data file from InnoDB. To decrease the size of your database you have to use mysqldump to dump all your tables, create a new database, and import your tables to the new database. If you want to change the number or the size of your InnoDB log files, you have to shut down MySQL and make sure that it shuts down without errors. Then copy the old log files into a safe place just in case something went wrong in the shutdown and you will need them to recover the database. Delete then the old log files from the log file directory, edit my.cnf, and start MySQL again. InnoDB will tell you at the startup that it is creating new log files. Best regards, Heikki Tuuri Innobase Oy http://www.innodb.com Transactions, foreign keys, and a hot backup tool for MySQL Order MySQL technical support from https://order.mysql.com/ - Original Message - From: mixo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: Benchmarking How can I benchmark the perfomance of Mysql with the following setup: Perl 5.8.0 (perl-DBI, perl-DBI-Mysql) mysql-3.23.54a-11 apache-2.0.40-21 mod_perl-1.99_07-5 I want to compare the perfomance of Mysql against that of Pg using my own data
question on mysql benchmarking
Hi, When I run perl run-all-tests --server=mysql --cmp=mysql,pg,solid --user=test --password=test --log in the sql-bench direcotory. I encountered following error messages: Can't locate DBI.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/ia64-linux /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0/ia64-linux /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl .) at run-all-tests line 36. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at run-all-tests line 36. I am very new to mysql. I cannot figure out the reason easily. Is there any problem with my perl? Another question is that I am also using another compiler (ORC from intel) to compile mysql. ORC borrows the frontend of gcc. but orcc doesnot accept compiler options such as -fno-implicit-templates -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti. I don't know the meaning of these flags. Can you explain me this? Can I eliminate these options and make mysql still runs well? Thanks. Peng - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
benchmarking pgsql with mysql benchmark suite
hi. i'm trying to benchmark pgsql living in cygwin on a 2K box with mysql installed normaly on windows. i get: C:\mysql\benchperl run-all-tests --host=PAVILION --server=Pg --user=n --password=x --log --comment 2x Pentium II 400mz, 256M, under vmware Got error: 'connectDBStart() -- socket() failed: errno=2 No such file or directory my ? is: is there a way to set an absolute path to the pgsql server in run or in run-all-tests so it find the pg server? or would it be easier to simply re-install mysql in the emulated unix environment of cygwin and try again. thanks in advance! jd - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: Benchmarking MyISAM, InnoDB, and Oracle: a problem with InnoDB
Sounds good. Thanks for the info, Heikki. --Walt -Original Message- From: Heikki Tuuri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Benchmarking MyISAM, InnoDB, and Oracle: a problem with InnoDB Walt, this is probably a performance bug in Linux. I have seen the same phenomenon on our 2-way Xeon, Linux-2.4.4 when there are just big SELECT queries running concurrently. My hypothesis is that the semaphore reservations I added to 3.23.44 cause some strange phenomenon inside the Linux kernel. Funny, but the problem did not appear when there were also inserts present. It seems to be some kind of a resonance problem. I will change .48 so that there are less semaphore operations in it. That will probably fix the problem, at least it it fixed a similar problem in some other concurrent SELECTs. You could try running MySQL-Max-3.23.43 to check if the strange phenomenon happens in it too. Regards, Heikki .. I'm finally finishing up my benchmarking, comparing MyISAM, Oracle, and InnoDB, and am having a problem with InnoDB. The final testing was load testing; we set up a number of perl scripts to simulate massive inserts, subquery inserts, selects, and updates to three tables. A master perl script runs all of the other scripts that connect and perform the activity on the tables. The benchmarking is being done on a VA Linux 2230 with 2gb of memory and two disk drives (about 30gb each) available. We're running Linux kernel 2.4.17, MySQL 3.23.47, Oracle 8.1.7.2. Doing inserts only, we can load 95,000 rows into one table in about 1 minute on MyISAM and around 2 minutes for both InnoDB and Oracle. When we run everything -- inserts, selects, updates -- at once, Oracle finishes the test in about 12 minutes, MyISAM finishes in about 26 minutes, but InnoDB just keeps running, and running, and running. In one test we let InnoDB run for over 24 hours and it was still going. MySQL doesn't hang; the daemons are cranking like crazy the whole time. There winds up being 19 MySQL processes that keep running. I'm thinking it's a configuration issue, but I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. It seems to be the selects that are taking so long. Doing a show processlist, each of the processes look like this: | Id | User | Host | db | Command | Time | State| Info | 12 | oracle | localhost | test_innodb | Query | 817 | Copying to tmp table | SELECT q.key_val, q.timestamp_val, q.range_val, q.rand_val,d.text_val FROMbench_data d, bench | And output from part of the InnoDB Monitor looks like this: MySQL thread id 12, query id 137166 localhost oracle Copying to tmp table SELECT q.key_val, q.timestamp_val, q.range_val, q.rand_val, d.text_val FROMbench_data d, bench Trx read view will not see trx with id = 0 618839, sees 0 618839 I've copied the my.cnf file; it's at the end of the email. At this point I'm not sure what's wrong. We're hoping to migrate from MyISAM to InnoDB, but our production environment is web-hosting based one that can get very busy, and a combination of inserts, updates, and selects is common. If anyone has any ideas about configuring InnoDB for this benchmarking I'm all ears. I'm also more than happy to provide output from InnoDB Monitor, the perl scripts, etc. Thanks,-- Walt Weaver Bozeman, Montana - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Benchmarking
Hello, I've looked around on mysql.com, and through the directories of my mysql install I'm looking for information on benchmarking my mysql database, but I'm not interested in seeing how it performs against other databases, I'm interested in testing how my designs will perform when scaled. If anyone can give me any pointers it would be great. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Benchmarking
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:37:21 -0800, Joel Wickard used a few recycled electrons to form: | Hello, | I've looked around on mysql.com, and through the directories of my mysql | install I'm looking for information on benchmarking my mysql database, but | I'm not interested in seeing how it performs against other databases, I'm | interested in testing how my designs will perform when scaled. If anyone | can give me any pointers it would be great. Your database performance is greatly dependant upon the design. If your design is good, it should run great. There are a lot of resources about good database design. Here are a few for you. http://databases.about.com/cs/specificproducts/ The mysql docs have some turning tips also. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Benchmarking
Hello, I've looked around on mysql.com, and through the directories of my mysql install I'm looking for information on benchmarking my mysql database, but I'm not interested in seeing how it performs against other databases, I'm interested in testing how my designs will perform when scaled. If anyone can give me any pointers it would be great. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: Benchmarking
Hi, -Original Message- From: Rachman M.H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 11:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Benchmarking Dear all, I've been trying benchmark MySQL, SQL Server 7, and M$ Access 97. But, SQL Server 7 and M$ Access is won when connected and opening recordset using ADO, Even i'm using MyODBC with TCP/IP connections. If i'm use cursorlocation=serverside with adOpenDynamic, and adLockOptimistic, still MyODBC is looses. Something interesting. When I did a small research on this, I got MyODBC as the best result for most of the cases. Is it possible for you to pass the following info, so that we can also cross check: 1. Test scenarios 2. Comparision analysis for various tools/applications 3. MyODBC version and the DLL type (debug/share version) 4. MySQL version How can i make speed up the connection and opening recordset for MySQL ? It also depends up on your SELECT query and how the table is structured. You can find more information on this in the manual ( 5. MySQL optimisation). Regards, venu -- For technical support contracts, go to https://order.mysql.com __ ___ ___ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Mr. Venu [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Developer /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ California, USA ___/ www.mysql.com - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Benchmarking
Dear all, I've been trying benchmark MySQL, SQL Server 7, and M$ Access 97. But, SQL Server 7 and M$ Access is won when connected and opening recordset using ADO, Even i'm using MyODBC with TCP/IP connections. If i'm use cursorlocation=serverside with adOpenDynamic, and adLockOptimistic, still MyODBC is looses. How can i make speed up the connection and opening recordset for MySQL ? FYI, MySQL installed on NT Machines with 128Mb RAM. I hope somebody can replying to me. Thanks. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Benchmarking Tools for MYSQL
Does anyone know of any well-known Benchmarking tools for MYSQL database? Thanks S.M. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Benchmarking
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 05:54:35PM +0100, Tadej Guzej wrote: How do I benchmark 2 queries that return same results without having mysql read from cache? The only certain way is to restart the server between the queries and do what you can to flush the OS cache, too, if you're concerned about it influencing the results. What is the max. size of the index file that fits into 512M memmory, so that mysql doesn't have to read the index file from disk? It's probably rather close to 512MB, right? Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936 MySQL 3.23.29: up 60 days, processed 575,280,080 queries (109/sec. avg) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Benchmarking
How do I benchmark 2 queries that return same results without having mysql read from cache? Example: if i run the first query it will take 2 seconds, when I run the query again, it takes 0.05 seconds. And What is the max. size of the index file that fits into 512M memmory, so that mysql doesn't have to read the index file from disk? Can someone explain the settings of that. Thanks, Tadej
Re: linux innobase benchmarking and BSD problem
Thank you Dan!
I do not have access to a FreeBSD computer during this weekend but
your stack prints already tell the origin of the problem.
I have implemented my own mutexes in the purpose that I can use
an assembler instruction for the atomic test-and-set operation
needed in a mutex. But for now I have done the test-and-set
with pthread_mutex_trylock: it provides an atomic operation
on an OS mutex which I can use in place of test-and-set.
It seems that if a thread does not acquire a mutex with the
first try, then something goes wrong and the thread is left in a loop.
The stack prints show that FreeBSD uses a spin wait also in the
case a trylock fails. This may be associated with the problem.
More logical would be that FreeBSD would return with a failure
code if trylock fails.
A fix would be to replace pthread_mutex_trylock with
the XCHG instruction to implement test-and-set. But that would not
work on non-Intel FreeBSD platforms.
I will dig into the FreeBSD documentation and try to find a
solution from there.
Best regards,
Heikki
At 03:52 PM 3/30/01 -0600, you wrote:
In the last episode (Mar 30), Heikki Tuuri said:
The FreeBSD bug is known. I will run tests on our FreeBSD machine in
the next few days. Obviously there is something wrong with the
FreeBSD port. Was it so that it hung and used 100 % of CPU? That has
been reported also from Italy.
I have a similar problem, on FreeBSD 5 (i.e. -current). I can insert
records one at a time with no problem, but if I try to update more than
~250 records at a time, it hangs, consuming 100% cpu. gdb'ing a corefile of
the process, it looks like a mutex/spinlock problem of some sort.
Deleting records dies if I delete between 100 and 150 records in one
go. Does innobase create a mutex for each record processed? Maybe
there's a limit on 256 held mutices per thread on FreeBSD or something.
-- mysqld hung on "insert into temp (value) select ip from iptable limit 300":
(gdb) thread apply all bt
Thread 1 (process 764):
#0 0x28288163 in _get_curthread ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_kern.c:1145
#1 0x28280064 in _spinlock_debug (lck=0xbfaa9ecc,
fname=0x28280138
"\203\020\205\017\2055\213\205\213U\b\211B\004\213E\f\
211B\b\213E\020\211B\f\215[^_\211]$FreeBSD:
src/lib/libc_r/arch/i386/_atomic_lock.S,v 1.3 1999/08/28 00:03:01 peter Exp
$", lineno=149551536)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_spinlock.c:83
#2 0x282854d6 in mutex_trylock_common (mutex=0xbfaa9ecc)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:311
#3 0x28285712 in __pthread_mutex_trylock (mutex=0x8ea3090)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:441
#4 0x8193d4b in mutex_spin_wait (mutex=0x8ea308c) at ../include/os0sync.ic:38
#5 0x8126ead in srv_master_thread (arg=0x0) at ../include/sync0sync.ic:220
#6 0x2827f18c in _thread_start ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_create.c:326
#7 0x0 in ?? ()
(gdb)
-- mysqld hung on "delete from temp limit 150":
(gdb) info threads;
* 1 process 26111 0x28361b54 in gettimeofday () from /usr/lib/libc.so.5
(gdb) where
#0 0x28361b54 in gettimeofday () from /usr/lib/libc.so.5
#1 0x28280949 in _thread_sig_handler (sig=0, info=0x828a660, ucp=0x282808d1)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_sig.c:93
#2 0xbfbfffac in ?? ()
#3 0x28287ffb in _thread_kern_sig_defer ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_kern.c:1049
#4 0x282854bf in mutex_trylock_common (mutex=0x0)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:308
#5 0x28285712 in __pthread_mutex_trylock (mutex=0x8ea3210)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:441
#6 0x8193d4b in mutex_spin_wait (mutex=0x8ea320c) at ../include/os0sync.ic:38
#7 0x8165a84 in buf_page_get_gen (space=0, offset=6, rw_latch=2, guess=0x0,
mode=10, mtr=0xbfaa95d0) at ../include/sync0sync.ic:220
#8 0x81576d9 in trx_purge_truncate_rseg_history (rseg=0x8ebd10c,
limit_trx_no={high = 0, low = 7946}, limit_undo_no={high = 0, low = 0})
at ../include/trx0rseg.ic:25
#9 0x8157bdd in trx_purge_truncate_history () at trx0purge.c:545
#10 0x81589c7 in trx_purge_fetch_next_rec (roll_ptr=0xbfaa9ee4,
cell=0x8ec016c, heap=0x8ebfe0c) at trx0purge.c:564
#11 0x813a2b6 in row_purge (node=0x8ec0134, thr=0x8ec00d4) at row0purge.c:481
#12 0x813a4fe in row_purge_step (thr=0x8ec00d4) at row0purge.c:548
#13 0x8129aa2 in que_run_threads (thr=0x8ec00d4) at que0que.c:1223
#14 0x8158f95 in trx_purge () at trx0purge.c:1050
#15 0x8126fb5 in srv_master_thread (arg=0x0) at srv0srv.c:1901
#16 0x2827f18c in _thread_start ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_create.c:326
#17 0x0 in ?? ()
(gdb)
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trouble
Re: linux benchmarking test and BSD problems
Hi Seung! Yes, you have to do some tuning to get the performance from a transactional database. You should not use autocommit=1, because then the database has to physically write the log segment to disk after each individual insert. Try to insert your data in a single transaction, only a single commit after the insert, or a few commits on the way. I understand you measured several times, doing DELETE FROM TABLE in between. Innobase uses some CPU to physically remove the delete marked records in a purge operation. DROP TABLE and TRUNCATE TABLE (in MySQL-4.0) are faster. I will also add a small optimization to auto_increment columns. Currently it executes SELECT MAX (KEY) FROM TABLE before each insert, which wastes some CPU and is not necessary. It is better cache the latest inserted key value to main memory, to the data dictionary. The FreeBSD bug is known. I will run tests on our FreeBSD machine in the next few days. Obviously there is something wrong with the FreeBSD port. Was it so that it hung and used 100 % of CPU? That has been reported also from Italy. Best regards, Heikki At 06:11 PM 3/30/01 +0900, you wrote: Hi Heikki, I have run a few test for innobase tables on linux and BSD 1. It seems that 'innobase' table was slower than 'bdb' table for 'insert' command, which is surprising(or not? o_O) 2. It may be due to that fact that I dont' know much about optimazing the 'innobase' table. Do you know how to boost the performance of 'bdb' or 'innobase table'? Please let me know...:( 3. I mainly tested the innobase table with linux, but I actually want to run mysql with 'bdb' or 'innobase' tables on FreeBSD. 4. However, mysql just hung when I tried to insert the 1 rows of data, the same data used for linux test, using 'mysql data.sql'. I used 'my-large.cnf' and changed the setting as follwings. innobase_buffer_pool_size=400M innobase_additional_mem_pool_size=20M FreeBSD setting 4.2 release #1 pentium 550, 512 RAM, mysql-3.23.35 complied with ./configure -- 1. --prefix=/usr/local/mysql --with-charset=euc_kr --with-low-memory --without-debug --without-readline --with-mysqld-ldflags=-all-static --with-mit-threads=no --with-client-ldflags=-all-static --with-innobase --with-bdb 2. --with-charset=euc_kr --with-innobase --with-berkeley-db Linux setting Redhat 6.2, kernal 2.2.14-5.0, pentium550, 128 RAM, mysql-3.23.35 complied with ./configure --with-charset=euc_kr --with-berkeley-db --with-innobase Other setting 1. The data used had three columns, 'no', 'name', 'grade' with 'no' as the primary index and auto_increament and grade as a key. There were 1 rows, and I inserted the data using 'shellmysql data.sql'. 2. Whenever I inserted the data, I simply did 'delete from table where no 0' instead of dropping the table. 2. I used 'my-medium' as 'my.cnf' 'mysql insert' benchmarking result( all times are in seconds). 1. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, all on, basic setting myisam real 5.61 real 5.10 real 5.08 innobase real 68.57 real 69.27 real 83.26 real 100.87 real 99.99 real 102.31 real 108.82 real 114.23 real 124.23 real 94.42 real 98.20 bdb real 56.83 real 43.49 real 39.76 real 54.77 real 48.75 2. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, bdb off, basic setting myisam real 4.48 real 3.01 real 3.08 real 3.08 real 3.04 innobase real 70.04 real 99.04 with innobase_buffer_pool_size=100M innobase_additional_mem_pool_size=10M real 76.60 real 80.97 real 81.52 real 107.47 3. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, bdb on bdb real 53.14 real 54.29!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987" META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT size=2 DIVFONT size=2Hi Heikki, I have run a few test for innobase tables on linux andnbsp;BSD/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=21. It seems that 'innobase' table was slower than 'bdb' table for 'insert' command, which is surprising(or not? o_O)/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=22. It may be due to that fact that I dont' know much about optimazing the 'innobase' table.nbsp;/FONTFONT size=2nbsp;Do you know how to boost the performance of 'bdb' or 'innobase table'?nbsp;nbsp;Please let me know...:(/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=23. I mainly tested the innobase table with linux, but I actually want to run mysql with 'bdb' or 'innobase' tables on FreeBSD./FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=24. However, mysql just hung when I tried to insert the 1 rows of data, the same data used for linux test,nbsp;using 'mysql lt; data.sql'.nbsp; I used 'my-large.cnf' and changednbsp;the setting asnbsp;follwings.nbsp;nbsp;/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT s
Re:linux innobase benchmarking and BSD problem
Hi Seung! Yes, you have to do some tuning to get the performance from a transactional database. You should not use autocommit=1, because then the database has to physically write the log segment to disk after each individual insert. Try to insert your data in a single transaction, only a single commit after the insert batch, or a few commits along the way. I understand you measured several times, doing DELETE FROM TABLE in between. Innobase uses some CPU to physically remove the delete marked records in a purge operation. DROP TABLE and TRUNCATE TABLE (in MySQL-4.0) are faster. I will also add a small optimization to auto_increment columns. Currently it executes SELECT MAX (KEY) FROM TABLE before each insert, which wastes some CPU and is not necessary. It is better cache the latest inserted key value to main memory, to the data dictionary. The FreeBSD bug is known. I will run tests on our FreeBSD machine in the next few days. Obviously there is something wrong with the FreeBSD port. Was it so that it hung and used 100 % of CPU? That has been reported also from Italy. Best regards, Heikki At 06:11 PM 3/30/01 +0900, you wrote: Hi Heikki, I have run a few test for innobase tables on linux and BSD 1. It seems that 'innobase' table was slower than 'bdb' table for 'insert' command, which is surprising(or not? o_O) 2. It may be due to that fact that I dont' know much about optimazing the 'innobase' table. Do you know how to boost the performance of 'bdb' or 'innobase table'? Please let me know...:( 3. I mainly tested the innobase table with linux, but I actually want to run mysql with 'bdb' or 'innobase' tables on FreeBSD. 4. However, mysql just hung when I tried to insert the 1 rows of data, the same data used for linux test, using 'mysql data.sql'. I used 'my-large.cnf' and changed the setting as follwings. innobase_buffer_pool_size=400M innobase_additional_mem_pool_size=20M FreeBSD setting 4.2 release #1 pentium 550, 512 RAM, mysql-3.23.35 complied with ./configure -- 1. --prefix=/usr/local/mysql --with-charset=euc_kr --with-low-memory --without-debug --without-readline --with-mysqld-ldflags=-all-static --with-mit-threads=no --with-client-ldflags=-all-static --with-innobase --with-bdb 2. --with-charset=euc_kr --with-innobase --with-berkeley-db Linux setting Redhat 6.2, kernal 2.2.14-5.0, pentium550, 128 RAM, mysql-3.23.35 complied with ./configure --with-charset=euc_kr --with-berkeley-db --with-innobase Other setting 1. The data used had three columns, 'no', 'name', 'grade' with 'no' as the primary index and auto_increament and grade as a key. There were 1 rows, and I inserted the data using 'shellmysql data.sql'. 2. Whenever I inserted the data, I simply did 'delete from table where no 0' instead of dropping the table. 2. I used 'my-medium' as 'my.cnf' 'mysql insert' benchmarking result( all times are in seconds). 1. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, all on, basic setting myisam real 5.61 real 5.10 real 5.08 innobase real 68.57 real 69.27 real 83.26 real 100.87 real 99.99 real 102.31 real 108.82 real 114.23 real 124.23 real 94.42 real 98.20 bdb real 56.83 real 43.49 real 39.76 real 54.77 real 48.75 2. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, bdb off, basic setting myisam real 4.48 real 3.01 real 3.08 real 3.08 real 3.04 innobase real 70.04 real 99.04 with innobase_buffer_pool_size=100M innobase_additional_mem_pool_size=10M real 76.60 real 80.97 real 81.52 real 107.47 3. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, bdb on bdb real 53.14 real 54.29!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987" META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT size=2 DIVFONT size=2Hi Heikki, I have run a few test for innobase tables on linux andnbsp;BSD/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=21. It seems that 'innobase' table was slower than 'bdb' table for 'insert' command, which is surprising(or not? o_O)/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=22. It may be due to that fact that I dont' know much about optimazing the 'innobase' table.nbsp;/FONTFONT size=2nbsp;Do you know how to boost the performance of 'bdb' or 'innobase table'?nbsp;nbsp;Please let me know...:(/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=23. I mainly tested the innobase table with linux, but I actually want to run mysql with 'bdb' or 'innobase' tables on FreeBSD./FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT size=24. However, mysql just hung when I tried to insert the 1 rows of data, the same data used for linux test,nbsp;using 'mysql lt; data.sql'.nbsp; I used 'my-large.cnf' and changednbsp;the setting asnbsp;follwings.nbsp;nbsp;/FONT/DIV DIVFONT size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT s
Re: linux innobase benchmarking and BSD problem
In the last episode (Mar 30), Heikki Tuuri said:
The FreeBSD bug is known. I will run tests on our FreeBSD machine in
the next few days. Obviously there is something wrong with the
FreeBSD port. Was it so that it hung and used 100 % of CPU? That has
been reported also from Italy.
I have a similar problem, on FreeBSD 5 (i.e. -current). I can insert
records one at a time with no problem, but if I try to update more than
~250 records at a time, it hangs, consuming 100% cpu. gdb'ing a corefile of
the process, it looks like a mutex/spinlock problem of some sort.
Deleting records dies if I delete between 100 and 150 records in one
go. Does innobase create a mutex for each record processed? Maybe
there's a limit on 256 held mutices per thread on FreeBSD or something.
-- mysqld hung on "insert into temp (value) select ip from iptable limit 300":
(gdb) thread apply all bt
Thread 1 (process 764):
#0 0x28288163 in _get_curthread ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_kern.c:1145
#1 0x28280064 in _spinlock_debug (lck=0xbfaa9ecc,
fname=0x28280138
"\203─\020\205└\017\2055 \213\205ⁿ■ \213U\b\211B\004\213E\f\211B\b\213E\020\211B\f\215Ñ╪■ [^_\211∞]├$FreeBSD:
src/lib/libc_r/arch/i386/_atomic_lock.S,v 1.3 1999/08/28 00:03:01 peter Exp $",
lineno=149551536)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_spinlock.c:83
#2 0x282854d6 in mutex_trylock_common (mutex=0xbfaa9ecc)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:311
#3 0x28285712 in __pthread_mutex_trylock (mutex=0x8ea3090)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:441
#4 0x8193d4b in mutex_spin_wait (mutex=0x8ea308c) at ../include/os0sync.ic:38
#5 0x8126ead in srv_master_thread (arg=0x0) at ../include/sync0sync.ic:220
#6 0x2827f18c in _thread_start ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_create.c:326
#7 0x0 in ?? ()
(gdb)
-- mysqld hung on "delete from temp limit 150":
(gdb) info threads;
* 1 process 26111 0x28361b54 in gettimeofday () from /usr/lib/libc.so.5
(gdb) where
#0 0x28361b54 in gettimeofday () from /usr/lib/libc.so.5
#1 0x28280949 in _thread_sig_handler (sig=0, info=0x828a660, ucp=0x282808d1)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_sig.c:93
#2 0xbfbfffac in ?? ()
#3 0x28287ffb in _thread_kern_sig_defer ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_kern.c:1049
#4 0x282854bf in mutex_trylock_common (mutex=0x0)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:308
#5 0x28285712 in __pthread_mutex_trylock (mutex=0x8ea3210)
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_mutex.c:441
#6 0x8193d4b in mutex_spin_wait (mutex=0x8ea320c) at ../include/os0sync.ic:38
#7 0x8165a84 in buf_page_get_gen (space=0, offset=6, rw_latch=2, guess=0x0,
mode=10, mtr=0xbfaa95d0) at ../include/sync0sync.ic:220
#8 0x81576d9 in trx_purge_truncate_rseg_history (rseg=0x8ebd10c,
limit_trx_no={high = 0, low = 7946}, limit_undo_no={high = 0, low = 0})
at ../include/trx0rseg.ic:25
#9 0x8157bdd in trx_purge_truncate_history () at trx0purge.c:545
#10 0x81589c7 in trx_purge_fetch_next_rec (roll_ptr=0xbfaa9ee4,
cell=0x8ec016c, heap=0x8ebfe0c) at trx0purge.c:564
#11 0x813a2b6 in row_purge (node=0x8ec0134, thr=0x8ec00d4) at row0purge.c:481
#12 0x813a4fe in row_purge_step (thr=0x8ec00d4) at row0purge.c:548
#13 0x8129aa2 in que_run_threads (thr=0x8ec00d4) at que0que.c:1223
#14 0x8158f95 in trx_purge () at trx0purge.c:1050
#15 0x8126fb5 in srv_master_thread (arg=0x0) at srv0srv.c:1901
#16 0x2827f18c in _thread_start ()
at /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread/uthread_create.c:326
#17 0x0 in ?? ()
(gdb)
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
linux innobase benchmarking and BSD problem
Hi everybody, I have run a few test for innobase tables on linux and BSD 1. It seems that 'innobase' table was slower than 'bdb' table for 'insert' command, which is surprising(or not? o_O) 2. It may be due to that fact that I dont' know much about optimazing the 'innobase' table. Anybody know how to boost the performance of 'bdb' or 'innobase table'? Please let me know...:( 3. I mainly tested the innobase table with linux, but I actually want to run mysql with 'bdb' or 'innobase' tables on FreeBSD. 4. However, mysql just hung when I tried to insert the 1 rows of data, the same data used for linux test, using 'mysql data.sql'. I used 'my-large.cnf' and changed the setting as follwing. Anybody knows what the problems are? innobase_buffer_pool_size=400M innobase_additional_mem_pool_size=20M FreeBSD setting 4.2 release #1 pentium 550, 512 RAM, mysql-3.23.35 complied with ./configure -- --prefix=/usr/local/mysql --with-charset=euc_kr --with-low-memory --without-debug --without-readline --with-mysqld-ldflags=-all-static --with-mit-threads=no --with-client-ldflags=-all-static Linux setting Redhat 6.2, kernal 2.2.14-5.0, pentium550, 128 RAM, mysql-3.23.35 complied with ./configure --with-charset=euc_kr --with-berkeley-db --with-innobase Other setting 1. The data used had three columns, 'no', 'name', 'grade' with 'no' as the primary index and auto_increament and grade as a key. There were 1 rows, and I inserted the data using 'shellmysql data.sql'. 2. Whenever I inserted the data, I simply did 'delete from table where no 0' instead of dropping the table. 2. I used 'my-medium' as 'my.cnf' 'mysql insert' benchmarking result( all times are in seconds). 1. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, all on, basic setting myisam real 5.61 real 5.10 real 5.08 innobase real 68.57 real 69.27 real 83.26 real 100.87 real 99.99 real 102.31 real 108.82 real 114.23 real 124.23 real 94.42 real 98.20 bdb real 56.83 real 43.49 real 39.76 real 54.77 real 48.75 2. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, bdb off, basic setting myisam real 4.48 real 3.01 real 3.08 real 3.08 real 3.04 innobase real 70.04 real 99.04 with innobase_buffer_pool_size=100M innobase_additional_mem_pool_size=10M real 76.60 real 80.97 real 81.52 real 107.47 3. with key, autocommit=1, flush_log_at_trx=1, bdb on bdb real 53.14 real 54.29
Re[2]: Benchmarking innobase tables
Hello Heikki, Monday, March 19, 2001, 4:40:30 PM, you wrote: Also the problem with innobase_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0 should be there is no guarantie the last transaction commited will be on it's place if the power would be lost. Also I don't know is it possible in this case for database to be corrupted as some transactions may modify database but are not in a logfile (Let's ask Heikki about this). HT The database does not get corrupted even if you use HT innobase_flush_logs_at_trx_commit=0 and it crashes: Innobase always writes HT the appropriate log segment to disk before writing a modified database HT page to disk. In this sense the log on disk is always 'ahead' of the disk HT image of the database. But, of course, you may lose the updates of the HT latest transactions in a crash, if the database has not yet written the HT relevant log segment to disk. OK. The only question is is in this case only last transactions may be lost, and what the transaction can be only be lost completely ? I'm speaking about the situation - if I have connection there I have 1,2,3,4 transactions as a sequince - may it happen what changes made by transaction 4 take place while while by transaction 3 not ? -- Best regards, Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Benchmarking innobase tables
At 20:43 Uhr -0600 17.3.2001, Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Mar 17), Christian Jaeger said: innobase table: autocommit=0, rollback after each insert: 59 insert+rollback/sec. autocommit=0, one rollback at the end: 2926 inserts/sec. autocommit=0, one commit at the end:2763 inserts/sec. autocommit=1: 34 inserts/sec. In the last case I can hear the head from the hard disk vibrating, it seems that innobase synches each commit through to the disk oxide. I'm sure innobase isn't the fastest database in the world if this is true for everyone. Why could this be the case for me? If you are going to be committing on every record, you'll want your tablespace and logfile directories on separate disks to avoid thrashing. If you only have one disk and don't care if you lose the last few transactions if your system crashes, try setting innobase_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0 in my.cnf. Wow, thanks. With innobase_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0, the benchmark now shows: autocommit=0, rollback after each insert: 1587 inserts+rollbacks/sec autocommit=1: 2764 inserts/sec. That's even faster than myisam (2487 inserts/sec today)!!! ChristianJ -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re[2]: Benchmarking innobase tables
Hello Christian, Sunday, March 18, 2001, 12:22:44 PM, you wrote: If you are going to be committing on every record, you'll want your tablespace and logfile directories on separate disks to avoid thrashing. If you only have one disk and don't care if you lose the last few transactions if your system crashes, try setting innobase_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0 in my.cnf. CJ Wow, thanks. With innobase_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0, the benchmark now shows: CJ autocommit=0, rollback after each insert: 1587 inserts+rollbacks/sec CJ autocommit=1: 2764 inserts/sec. CJ That's even faster than myisam (2487 inserts/sec today)!!! In this case you should compare it to myisam created with delay_key_write=1, also the size of key_buffer matter. Also the problem with innobase_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0 should be there is no guarantie the last transaction commited will be on it's place if the power would be lost. Also I don't know is it possible in this case for database to be corrupted as some transactions may modify database but are not in a logfile (Let's ask Heikki about this). -- Best regards, Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Benchmarking innobase tables
Hello
I've compiled mysql-3.23.35 with innobase support - it runs much
better than BDB for me - and run a simple benchmark with the
following script:
use DBI;
my $DB= DBI-connect("dbi:mysql:innobase","chris",shift) or die;
$DB-{RaiseError}=1;
$DB-do("drop table if exists speedtest");
$DB-do("create table speedtest (a int not null primary key, b int
not null) type=innobase");
$DB-do("set autocommit=0"); # or =1
my $ins=$DB-prepare("insert into speedtest values(?,?)");
foreach (0..1000) {
eval {
$ins-execute(int(rand(1000)),int(rand(10)) );
};
if ($@) {warn $@} else {$done++}
}
# $DB-do("commit"); # uncommented for some test
print "have inserted $done entries\n";
On a lightly loaded powermac G3 running linuxppc I get the following results:
myisam table: 2000 inserts/sec.
innobase table:
autocommit=0, rollback after each insert: 59 insert+rollback/sec.
autocommit=0, one rollback at the end: 2926 inserts/sec.
autocommit=0, one commit at the end:2763 inserts/sec.
autocommit=1: 34 inserts/sec.
In the last case I can hear the head from the hard disk vibrating, it
seems that innobase synches each commit through to the disk oxide.
I'm sure innobase isn't the fastest database in the world if this is
true for everyone. Why could this be the case for me?
Some system info:
LinuxPPC June 1999, Kernel 2.2.17-0.6.1,
glibc-2.1.3-0j
gcc-2.95.3-2f
Innobase data is written to an IDE harddisk.
Cheers
Christian Jaeger
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
MYSQL BENCHMARKING PROBLEMS
Hi, My website is running on MySql 3.21 and it has so much records that it sometimes stopped running and I had to restart the mysqld. My question is how do I go about benchmarking my site and the mysql server? TIA Teddy
