Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Thanks for you reply. I read the official document and found the variable called thread_concurrency could only affect on solaris. On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:04 AM, mos mo...@fastmail.fm wrote: At 06:00 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. Any reply is appreciated. Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. Mike -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=yueliangdao0...@gmail.com -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
RE: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
What kind of query do you use? I think that MySQL is scalable in using best query on the multi-core ( or SMP ) server. It is same on InnoDB and MyISAM on over 4-cores. Regards, Genie Japo -Original Message- From: Moon's Father [mailto:yueliangdao0...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:00 PM To: MySql Subject: MySQL runs on 16-cores server Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. Any reply is appreciated. -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Mike, Now the SSD that I would like to have is the Hyperdrive 5 from http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/. It is a DDR SSD and each drive has slots for 8 DIMM's which means it can hold up to 32GB (64GB if you can find 8GB DDR2's) per drive. They can be striped to give you a heck of a lot of drive space using RAID. And yes, they are faster than spit and will never wear out. So if I wanted to speed up my MySQL database, I'd definitely be buying quite a few of these. (Maybe later this year when I've got some cache to spareg) Are these drives expensive? Darn right. Are they worth it? Well, they say time is money and if you need the results as fast as possible, then load 'em on up. I find most databases are disk bound and not CPU bound so switching to ram drives may be the best bang for the buck. :-) If you're in the Santa Clara area, you might want to hear Mark Callaghan speak on these topics. He recently blogged about it here: http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2009/04/battle-of-hot-boxes.html -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
-Original Message- From: baron.schwa...@gmail.com [mailto:baron.schwa...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Baron Schwartz Sent: dinsdag 14 april 2009 15:18 To: mos Cc: Jerry Schwartz; Andy Smith; mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server Mike, Now the SSD that I would like to have is the Hyperdrive 5 from http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/. It is a DDR SSD and each drive has slots for 8 DIMM's which means it can hold up to 32GB (64GB if you can find 8GB DDR2's) per drive. Too bad these aren't SCSI drives, so they could be used with Vmware ESX 3.5. - Mark -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Sorry for top-posting, but this is getting unwieldy. The problems with hardware in multiprocessor systems have been dealt with long since, assuming that Intel, AMD, et al have implemented the solutions. Ten years ago and more, I worked with machines capable of 128 processors and they seemed to work okay. Of course, there was a price difference. :) As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the DB) locking and disk access speed. Regards, Jerry Schwartz The Infoshop by Global Information Incorporated 195 Farmington Ave. Farmington, CT 06032 860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341 www.the-infoshop.com www.giiexpress.com www.etudes-marche.com -Original Message- From: mos [mailto:mo...@fastmail.fm] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:07 PM To: Andy Smith Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server At 08:27 AM 4/11/2009, Andy Smith wrote: Hi, In what way can having more cores slow down MySQL (or any other app for that matter)? Are you simlpy referring to the fact that some mutlicore servers might be slower in single threaded preformance than a higher clocked single core system? If I have a mutlicore system with fast single threaded performance I wouldnt expect it to be slower in almost any cases with something like a mutliprocess database system, thanks Andy. Andy, There have been many blog posts claiming MySQL does not perform all that well with multi-core processors, especially Innodb. For MyISAM the problem is waiting for table locks, multi-processors are not going to help. The best way to increase speed is to improve the performance of the hard drives. The hard drives are the biggest bottleneck, not by adding more processors. The new faster SSD's may be the answer. They have released 256gb and 512gb SSD's that are super fast and claim to have have MTBF that is longer than most hard drives. Here are a few of the multi-core performance blogs. http://spyced.blogspot.com/2006/12/benchmark-postgresql-beats- stuffing.html http://mysqlguy.net/blog/2008/07/16/innodb-multi-core-performance http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/20/ingenius-piece-of-sun- marketing/ A better way to scale MySQL is to run multiple servers on Solaris. http://blogs.sun.com/mrbenchmark/entry/scaling_mysql_on_a_256 Of course you could also try the MySQL cluster which is doing the same thing but on multiple machines. They get around the disk problem by putting the database in memory. So you will get a bigger bang for the buck by distributing the load over several machines and putting the database in memory, rather than adding multiple CPU's. Postgresql is one of the few open sources databases that will scale effectively using multiple processors. I wish that was the case with MySQL, but it's not. Mike Quoting mos mo...@fastmail.fm: Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=jschwa...@the- infoshop.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Jerry, At 09:53 AM 4/13/2009, Jerry Schwartz wrote: Sorry for top-posting, but this is getting unwieldy. The problems with hardware in multiprocessor systems have been dealt with long since, assuming that Intel, AMD, et al have implemented the solutions. Ten years ago and more, I worked with machines capable of 128 processors and they seemed to work okay. Well having a machine with 128 processors and actually getting MySQL to take advantage of 128 processors is a different matter entirely. MySQL does not scale well beyond 4 processors, at least not like PostgreSql does. MySQL seems to hit a plateau rather quickly. If XtraDb's modified Innodb plugin scales better, then fine. But I haven't seen any benchmarks showing the speed improvements relative to the number of processors used and is something I'd really like to see. Of course, there was a price difference. :) As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the DB) locking and disk access speed. Of course. When it comes to MySQL, I would invest more money into more memory and fast SSD drives rather than more CPU's. You'll get a bigger bang for the buck. :) Mike Regards, Jerry Schwartz The Infoshop by Global Information Incorporated 195 Farmington Ave. Farmington, CT 06032 860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341 www.the-infoshop.com www.giiexpress.com www.etudes-marche.com -Original Message- From: mos [mailto:mo...@fastmail.fm] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:07 PM To: Andy Smith Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server At 08:27 AM 4/11/2009, Andy Smith wrote: Hi, In what way can having more cores slow down MySQL (or any other app for that matter)? Are you simlpy referring to the fact that some mutlicore servers might be slower in single threaded preformance than a higher clocked single core system? If I have a mutlicore system with fast single threaded performance I wouldnt expect it to be slower in almost any cases with something like a mutliprocess database system, thanks Andy. Andy, There have been many blog posts claiming MySQL does not perform all that well with multi-core processors, especially Innodb. For MyISAM the problem is waiting for table locks, multi-processors are not going to help. The best way to increase speed is to improve the performance of the hard drives. The hard drives are the biggest bottleneck, not by adding more processors. The new faster SSD's may be the answer. They have released 256gb and 512gb SSD's that are super fast and claim to have have MTBF that is longer than most hard drives. Here are a few of the multi-core performance blogs. http://spyced.blogspot.com/2006/12/benchmark-postgresql-beats- stuffing.html http://mysqlguy.net/blog/2008/07/16/innodb-multi-core-performance http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/20/ingenius-piece-of-sun- marketing/ A better way to scale MySQL is to run multiple servers on Solaris. http://blogs.sun.com/mrbenchmark/entry/scaling_mysql_on_a_256 Of course you could also try the MySQL cluster which is doing the same thing but on multiple machines. They get around the disk problem by putting the database in memory. So you will get a bigger bang for the buck by distributing the load over several machines and putting the database in memory, rather than adding multiple CPU's. Postgresql is one of the few open sources databases that will scale effectively using multiple processors. I wish that was the case with MySQL, but it's not. Mike Quoting mos mo...@fastmail.fm: Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=jschwa...@the- infoshop.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Mike, MySQL does not scale well beyond 4 processors, at least not like PostgreSql does. MySQL seems to hit a plateau rather quickly. If XtraDb's modified Innodb plugin scales better, then fine. But I haven't seen any benchmarks showing the speed improvements relative to the number of processors used and is something I'd really like to see. You can find such benchmarks on our blog. And Mark Callaghan and maybe some others have benchmarked it too. Of course, we would love to see more independent benchmarks. Vadim considers that we've solved scalability problems in XtraDB up to 16 cores, and I agree, though I am less of an expert than he is. However, many problems in MySQL itself remain even if all the storage engines are fixed. As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the DB) locking and disk access speed. Of course. When it comes to MySQL, I would invest more money into more memory and fast SSD drives rather than more CPU's. You'll get a bigger bang for the buck. :) None of MySQL's current storage engines takes advantage of a lot of memory or fast SSD drives either, in my opinion. Not like they could, anyway. Have you seen our (or Jignesh Shah's, or Matt Yonkovit's) benchmarks and discussion on SSD drives? When you disable the (unsafe, non-battery-backed) write cache, suddenly they aren't so fast anymore. Baron -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
On Mon, April 13, 2009 11:55, mos wrote: Jerry, At 09:53 AM 4/13/2009, Jerry Schwartz wrote: Sorry for top-posting, but this is getting unwieldy. The problems with hardware in multiprocessor systems have been dealt with long since, assuming that Intel, AMD, et al have implemented the solutions. Ten years ago and more, I worked with machines capable of 128 processors and they seemed to work okay. Well having a machine with 128 processors and actually getting MySQL to take advantage of 128 processors is a different matter entirely. MySQL does not scale well beyond 4 processors, at least not like PostgreSql does. MySQL seems to hit a plateau rather quickly. If XtraDb's modified Innodb plugin scales better, then fine. But I haven't seen any benchmarks showing the speed improvements relative to the number of processors used and is something I'd really like to see. Of course, there was a price difference. :) As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the DB) locking and disk access speed. Of course. When it comes to MySQL, I would invest more money into more memory and fast SSD drives rather than more CPU's. You'll get a bigger bang for the buck. :) Mike It sounds like we are talking about a server were everything is trying to get at the same database and tables, correct? Sort of, it you had to put Best Buy or Sears on a box how would you do it, vs if you had many different databases all being hit at the same time. Has anyone benchmarked that scenario? -- William R. Mussatto Systems Engineer http://www.csz.com 909-920-9154 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Right now if you want a more scalable *current* version of MySQL, you need to look to the Google patches, the Percona builds (and Percona XtraDB, a fork of InnoDB), or OurDelta builds. Is there a webpage somewhere that compares and contrasts the above patchsets? I thought the Google patches were mostly in the OurDelta patchset? ds -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM, David Sparks d...@ca.sophos.com wrote: Right now if you want a more scalable *current* version of MySQL, you need to look to the Google patches, the Percona builds (and Percona XtraDB, a fork of InnoDB), or OurDelta builds. Is there a webpage somewhere that compares and contrasts the above patchsets? I thought the Google patches were mostly in the OurDelta patchset? Google and Percona started out by releasing patches. Some of the Percona patches are inspired/based/derived from Google's (or others in some cases). Much of the hardest work we've done is completely original, though. After a while, Percona started building binaries, recognizing that customers don't want to apply patches, they want a tested build that others are also using. There's safety in numbers. Some very large installations are using the Percona binaries, though many of them (who've sponsored some of the development) are very private about their involvement in this; people don't want to tell what they are doing operationally, especially if they're in a really large, competitive industry. So I can't name names -- but if you knew, you'd be suitably impressed, I'm sure :-) You can consider OurDelta as a downstream builder of Percona's builds. They combine our patches with some things like PBXT and the Sphinx storage engine. Our position is conservative: we want to modify the vanilla MySQL as little as possible, or rather, only as much as needed to solve critical problems NOW, to make risk-averse people comfortable. So we don't add in other things like alternative storage engines. OurDelta serves as a way to get prebuilt binaries that include a lot of stuff our users would not want in the binary at all. Most of the Google patches are not in ANY build, to the best of my knowledge. Google's modifications to the server are pretty large in some cases. When Percona has used selected parts of this, like mirrored binary logs, we've tried to pull it out in bits and pieces. Reviewing and understanding what Google has done is a lot of work, and I don't know if anyone other than Google really does understand their patches right now. Baron -- Baron Schwartz, Director of Consulting, Percona Inc. Our Blog: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/ Our Services: http://www.percona.com/services.html -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
At 02:21 PM 4/13/2009, Baron Schwartz wrote: Mike, MySQL does not scale well beyond 4 processors, at least not like PostgreSql does. MySQL seems to hit a plateau rather quickly. If XtraDb's modified Innodb plugin scales better, then fine. But I haven't seen any benchmarks showing the speed improvements relative to the number of processors used and is something I'd really like to see. You can find such benchmarks on our blog. And Mark Callaghan and maybe some others have benchmarked it too. Of course, we would love to see more independent benchmarks. Vadim considers that we've solved scalability problems in XtraDB up to 16 cores, and I agree, though I am less of an expert than he is. I did see one benchmark but more are definitely needed. However, many problems in MySQL itself remain even if all the storage engines are fixed. Well Sun should throw some more logs on the fire and get it done. As others said, the major bottlenecks are likely to be internal (to the DB) locking and disk access speed. Of course. When it comes to MySQL, I would invest more money into more memory and fast SSD drives rather than more CPU's. You'll get a bigger bang for the buck. :) None of MySQL's current storage engines takes advantage of a lot of memory or fast SSD drives either, in my opinion. Not like they could, anyway. Have you seen our (or Jignesh Shah's, or Matt Yonkovit's) benchmarks and discussion on SSD drives? When you disable the (unsafe, non-battery-backed) write cache, suddenly they aren't so fast anymore. If you're talking about the Flash SSD's, it's not the RAM that is causing the problem. These drives will slow down as the drive fills up with data. There is a lot of overhead needed to recover deleted space when it needs to write another page. These drives start out really fast, but like I said, they slow down as the drive fills up with data and the only way to get it back to its pristine speed is to do a secure erase on the drive which means you lose all your data. Windows 7 will have a Trim command that will help to minimize these delays but not eliminate them entirely. Corsair has announced a new Flash SSD that looks interesting http://hothardware.com/News/Corsair-Readying-Ultra-Fast-256GB-SSD/ but of course is expensive. Now the SSD that I would like to have is the Hyperdrive 5 from http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/. It is a DDR SSD and each drive has slots for 8 DIMM's which means it can hold up to 32GB (64GB if you can find 8GB DDR2's) per drive. They can be striped to give you a heck of a lot of drive space using RAID. And yes, they are faster than spit and will never wear out. So if I wanted to speed up my MySQL database, I'd definitely be buying quite a few of these. (Maybe later this year when I've got some cache to spareg) Are these drives expensive? Darn right. Are they worth it? Well, they say time is money and if you need the results as fast as possible, then load 'em on up. I find most databases are disk bound and not CPU bound so switching to ram drives may be the best bang for the buck. :-) Mike Baron -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Thank you very much. Could you tell me what is IIRC? On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Uwe Kiewel m...@kiewel-online.ch wrote: Moon's Father wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. IIRC is mysqld multi threaded - so if you have parallel queries, mysqld will spam multiple threads across multiple cores. HTH, Uwe -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
At 02:03 AM 4/11/2009, you wrote: Thank you very much. Could you tell me what is IIRC? IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. I don't know why he didn't write it out in full, it would have caused less confusion. For a second there I thought he was talking about MS's predecessor to IIS. :-) Mike On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Uwe Kiewel m...@kiewel-online.ch wrote: Moon's Father wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. IIRC is mysqld multi threaded - so if you have parallel queries, mysqld will spam multiple threads across multiple cores. HTH, Uwe -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Moon's Father wrote: Thank you very much. Could you tell me what is IIRC? If I remember correctly. HTH, Uwe On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Uwe Kiewel m...@kiewel-online.ch wrote: Moon's Father wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. IIRC is mysqld multi threaded - so if you have parallel queries, mysqld will spam multiple threads across multiple cores. HTH, Uwe -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Hi, In what way can having more cores slow down MySQL (or any other app for that matter)? Are you simlpy referring to the fact that some mutlicore servers might be slower in single threaded preformance than a higher clocked single core system? If I have a mutlicore system with fast single threaded performance I wouldnt expect it to be slower in almost any cases with something like a mutliprocess database system, thanks Andy. Quoting mos mo...@fastmail.fm: Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
MySQL isn't multi-process, it's single-process and multi-threaded. A lot of work is going into making it scale better on SMP machines. Much of this is to be released in future versions of MySQL. The Drizzle developers are also doing a lot of good work, but that's in Drizzle. Right now if you want a more scalable *current* version of MySQL, you need to look to the Google patches, the Percona builds (and Percona XtraDB, a fork of InnoDB), or OurDelta builds. Baron On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Andy Smith a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote: Hi, In what way can having more cores slow down MySQL (or any other app for that matter)? Are you simlpy referring to the fact that some mutlicore servers might be slower in single threaded preformance than a higher clocked single core system? If I have a mutlicore system with fast single threaded performance I wouldnt expect it to be slower in almost any cases with something like a mutliprocess database system, thanks Andy. Quoting mos mo...@fastmail.fm: Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=ba...@xaprb.com -- Baron Schwartz, Director of Consulting, Percona Inc. Our Blog: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/ Our Services: http://www.percona.com/services.html -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Andy, one reason (in addition to slower clock speeds per core) that a system with more cores might be slower than an equivalently fast single processor is memory bandwidth and communications bottlenecks between cores. Synchronization of multiple database processes and accesses to shared data are critical in database processing. Mechanisms to coordinate these activities might scale well-enough on a uniprocessor but not so well on a multi-core machine. In addition to Baron's shameless plug about XtraDB, I guess I'll make a similar shameless plug for the InnoDB Plugin. The development team that wrote InnoDB originally (and maintains the InnoDB built in to MySQL) continues to enhance performance and functionality. The InnoDB Plugin has recently been released and includes a patch from Google that significantly improves multi-core scalability. It's worth remembering that the enhanced version of InnoDB, the InnoDB Plugin, is available on http://www.innodb.com/innodb_plugin/, in addition to the forks Baron mentions. Ken Baron Schwartz wrote: MySQL isn't multi-process, it's single-process and multi-threaded. A lot of work is going into making it scale better on SMP machines. Much of this is to be released in future versions of MySQL. The Drizzle developers are also doing a lot of good work, but that's in Drizzle. Right now if you want a more scalable *current* version of MySQL, you need to look to the Google patches, the Percona builds (and Percona XtraDB, a fork of InnoDB), or OurDelta builds. Baron On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Andy Smith a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote: Hi, In what way can having more cores slow down MySQL (or any other app for that matter)? Are you simlpy referring to the fact that some mutlicore servers might be slower in single threaded preformance than a higher clocked single core system? If I have a mutlicore system with fast single threaded performance I wouldnt expect it to be slower in almost any cases with something like a mutliprocess database system, thanks Andy. Quoting mos mo...@fastmail.fm: Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsubº...@xaprb.com
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
At 08:27 AM 4/11/2009, Andy Smith wrote: Hi, In what way can having more cores slow down MySQL (or any other app for that matter)? Are you simlpy referring to the fact that some mutlicore servers might be slower in single threaded preformance than a higher clocked single core system? If I have a mutlicore system with fast single threaded performance I wouldnt expect it to be slower in almost any cases with something like a mutliprocess database system, thanks Andy. Andy, There have been many blog posts claiming MySQL does not perform all that well with multi-core processors, especially Innodb. For MyISAM the problem is waiting for table locks, multi-processors are not going to help. The best way to increase speed is to improve the performance of the hard drives. The hard drives are the biggest bottleneck, not by adding more processors. The new faster SSD's may be the answer. They have released 256gb and 512gb SSD's that are super fast and claim to have have MTBF that is longer than most hard drives. Here are a few of the multi-core performance blogs. http://spyced.blogspot.com/2006/12/benchmark-postgresql-beats-stuffing.html http://mysqlguy.net/blog/2008/07/16/innodb-multi-core-performance http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/20/ingenius-piece-of-sun-marketing/ A better way to scale MySQL is to run multiple servers on Solaris. http://blogs.sun.com/mrbenchmark/entry/scaling_mysql_on_a_256 Of course you could also try the MySQL cluster which is doing the same thing but on multiple machines. They get around the disk problem by putting the database in memory. So you will get a bigger bang for the buck by distributing the load over several machines and putting the database in memory, rather than adding multiple CPU's. Postgresql is one of the few open sources databases that will scale effectively using multiple processors. I wish that was the case with MySQL, but it's not. Mike Quoting mos mo...@fastmail.fm: Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
Moon's Father wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. IIRC is mysqld multi threaded - so if you have parallel queries, mysqld will spam multiple threads across multiple cores. HTH, Uwe -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
On Fri, April 10, 2009 05:24, Uwe Kiewel wrote: Moon's Father wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. IIRC is mysqld multi threaded - so if you have parallel queries, mysqld will spam multiple threads across multiple cores. --- Don't you mean spaN. I hope mySQL doesn't SPAM. ;-} HTH, Uwe -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=mussa...@csz.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Wm Mussatto mussa...@csz.com wrote: On Fri, April 10, 2009 05:24, Uwe Kiewel wrote: Moon's Father wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. IIRC is mysqld multi threaded - so if you have parallel queries, mysqld will spam multiple threads across multiple cores. --- Don't you mean spaN. I hope mySQL doesn't SPAM. ;-} On 16 cores, spam is probably a little more accurate :) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: MySQL runs on 16-cores server
At 06:00 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: Hi. If the server has 16 cores, how to set parameters to make MySQL runs well. Any reply is appreciated. Using more cores with MySQL doesn't mean it will run faster. In fact, it could slow it down. Make sure you have done benchmarking with your current computer so you can compare the difference. InnoDb and MyISAM don't scale well with multi-cores I'm afraid. Mike -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
