>
> What makes PostgreSQL more interesting? Because you use it perhaps?
> I would hesitate a guess that Mysql is a very common workload
> under FreeBSD likely more so than PostgreSQL and as such that
> would be a very good reason for it to have particular interest
> and hence focus as a good start
Andrew Hammond wrote:
Performance is a pretty weak reason to upgrade, unless of course you
have a performance problem. The one thing that will really push me to
upgrade is bug fixes to stuff that I use where the risk of exposure to
the bug outweighs the risk and cost of upgrade.
This may be the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:36:44AM -0800, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> Would you guys mind
> graphing the relative performance of PostgreSQL on 6.2-RELEASE and
> your patched version please?
postgresql currently performs worse than mysql on SMP freeBSD systems
for the reason I posted yesterday (thunde
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> Performance is a pretty weak reason to upgrade, unless of course you
> have a performance problem.
> P.S. I know this is kinda trollish, but I don't understand the
> interest in MySQL as a load,
I agree in general, but MySQL performance is very exposed as an advocacy
is
On 2/25/07, Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
How does that compare to 6.2-RELEASE performance?
>>> Much better. Fixing filedesc locking was key.
>>>
>>>
>> If there is extra cycles on the same hardware, a performance comparison
>> graph would be great.
>
> Se
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> I'm saying that the 7.0-CVS sources, which are graphed, are unlikely
> to differ significantly from 6.2-CVS, i.e. they do not show good
> scaling on this benchmark because of the problems with filedesc
> locking in CVS.
Ok, got it, but the second question is: where is it?
G
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:26:18PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> >I'm saying that the 7.0-CVS sources, which are graphed, are unlikely
> >to differ significantly from 6.2-CVS, i.e. they do not show good
> >scaling on this benchmark because of the problems with filedesc
>
Kris Kennaway wrote:
I'm saying that the 7.0-CVS sources, which are graphed, are unlikely
to differ significantly from 6.2-CVS, i.e. they do not show good
scaling on this benchmark because of the problems with filedesc
locking in CVS.
Could you give a link to the 7.0-CVS graph?
Pete
_
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > 6.2 and 7.0 CVS sources (which are graphed on Jeff's blog and my
> > webpage linked there) are unlikely to differ much: as I said, filedesc
> > locking was key to fixing performance here. I'm sure we'll be
>
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 6.2 and 7.0 CVS sources (which are graphed on Jeff's blog and my
> webpage linked there) are unlikely to differ much: as I said, filedesc
> locking was key to fixing performance here. I'm sure we'll be
> promoting this improvement heavily when 7.0 enters release cycle, to
>
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:22:39PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi, Kris,
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:55:08PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Now that the goals of the SMPng project are complete, for the past
> > year or more several of us have been working hard on profiling FreeBSD
> > in va
Hi, Kris,
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:55:08PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Now that the goals of the SMPng project are complete, for the past
> year or more several of us have been working hard on profiling FreeBSD
> in various multiprocessor workloads, and looking for performance
> bottlenecks to
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:08:20AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> How does that compare to 6.2-RELEASE performance?
>
> >>> Much better. Fixing filedesc locking was key.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> If there is extra cycles on the same hardware, a performance comparison
Kris Kennaway wrote:
How does that compare to 6.2-RELEASE performance?
>>> Much better. Fixing filedesc locking was key.
>>>
>>>
>> If there is extra cycles on the same hardware, a performance comparison
>> graph would be great.
>
> See the links in my posting ;)
I think he mea
With this great progress, it would be even greater if there would be way
to run virtualization (Xen) when 7.0 hits the street.
Pete
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To uns
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:41:17AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:00:32AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> >
> >>Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >>
> >>>This shows the graph of MySQL transactions/second performed by a
> >>>multi-threaded client workload
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:00:32AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
This shows the graph of MySQL transactions/second performed by a
multi-threaded client workload against a local MySQL database with
varying numbers of client threads, with identical
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:00:32AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> >This shows the graph of MySQL transactions/second performed by a
> >multi-threaded client workload against a local MySQL database with
> >varying numbers of client threads, with identically configured Free
Kris Kennaway wrote:
This shows the graph of MySQL transactions/second performed by a
multi-threaded client workload against a local MySQL database with
varying numbers of client threads, with identically configured FreeBSD
and Linux systems on the same machine.
How does that compare to 6.2-
Now that the goals of the SMPng project are complete, for the past
year or more several of us have been working hard on profiling FreeBSD
in various multiprocessor workloads, and looking for performance
bottlenecks to be optimized.
We have recently made significant progress on optimizing for MySQL
20 matches
Mail list logo
