Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-04 Thread Kip Macy
The FreeBSD zookeepers politely request that visitors not feed the trolls. -Kip On 7/4/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Hugo Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 > performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. > This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz,

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-04 Thread Danial Thom
--- Hugo Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 > performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. > This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM > and 2x73GB SCSI disks that > do 320MB/s > > For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to > starting the test, > waited for

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread David Xu
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 06:21, David Xu wrote: > For conroe, google the "fair-cache", you may find what should be done > in scheduler, that's one of many reasons why I was saying libpthread should > be stopped. Unless conroe is very special and does not need this > work. Here is one of such inter

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread David Xu
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 02:40, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Michael Vince wrote: > > HTT was Intels best early stab to help path the way for their multi > > core technologies to come into use as quickly as possible for the > > masses over just the server end. > > Exactly, thats why i wouldn't spend too mu

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread Mike Jakubik
Michael Vince wrote: HTT was Intels best early stab to help path the way for their multi core technologies to come into use as quickly as possible for the masses over just the server end. Exactly, thats why i wouldn't spend too much time bothering with HTT. It was a transitional technology fo

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread Michael Vince
David Xu wrote: Michael Vince wrote: Hugo Silva wrote: Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM and 2x73GB SCSI disks that do 320MB/s For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to starting the test, waited fo

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread David Xu
Michael Vince wrote: Hugo Silva wrote: Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM and 2x73GB SCSI disks that do 320MB/s For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to starting the test, waited for about 1 minute fo

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread Michael Vince
Hugo Silva wrote: Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM and 2x73GB SCSI disks that do 320MB/s For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to starting the test, waited for about 1 minute for it to settle down, an

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-03 Thread Dinesh Nair
On 07/03/06 14:17 David Xu said the following: Please don't run mysql in PROC_SCOPE with libthr, it has no benefit and can only hurt performance, you can forcely turn it off by: still, libthr showed oodles better performance than libpthread. is this indicative ? -- Regards,

Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-02 Thread David Xu
Hugo Silva wrote: Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM and 2x73GB SCSI disks that do 320MB/s For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to starting the test, waited for about 1 minute for it to settle down, an

MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark

2006-07-02 Thread Hugo Silva
Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5 performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE. This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM and 2x73GB SCSI disks that do 320MB/s For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to starting the test, waited for about 1 minute for it to settle down, and ran super smack.