ahh, sorry. missunderstood that. i've seen many places they've put the
data into memory disks. i've thought that's being done here also.
On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:33:56 +0200
Tomasz Pajor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How the filesystem is relevant when tables are in memory?
> > first, they so
> > How the filesystem is relevant when tables are in memory?
> first, they somehow have to be put into the memory
> second, for consistency (yeah, this word is missing from toysql-users'
> vocabulary) it has to write the data to the disk. otherwise you'd lose
> anything on a crash
http://dev.mysq
On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:03:55 +0200
Tomasz Pajor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > May I ask whether you are using innodb or myisam? both on
> > > > freebsd and Linux. And what filesystem are you using for
> > > > mysql's data files? UFS, ZFS or anything else?
> > >
> > > MySQL engine used is ME
> > > May I ask whether you are using innodb or myisam? both on freebsd
> > > and Linux. And what filesystem are you using for mysql's data
> > > files? UFS, ZFS or anything else?
> >
> > MySQL engine used is MEMORY, filesystem is ufs, but it's not relevant.
> sure it is relevant. check my results
On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:45:07 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > May I ask whether you are using innodb or myisam? both on freebsd
> > and Linux. And what filesystem are you using for mysql's data
> > files? UFS, ZFS or anything else?
>
> MySQL engine used is MEMORY, filesystem is ufs, but it's
> May I ask whether you are using innodb or myisam? both on freebsd and Linux.
> And what filesystem are you using for mysql's data files? UFS, ZFS or anything
> else?
MySQL engine used is MEMORY, filesystem is ufs, but it's not relevant.
> IIRC there's some hack to reduce gettimeofday()'s preci
> I'm using mysql 5.1.24-rc in 5 separate jails.
>
> Question:
>
> 10 clients are pushing queries (10 separate machines). 2 clients to 1 mysql
> daemon. One client is performing an update on param_stat_short_level_1_0,
> second on param_stat_short_level_1_1.
>
> Each client needs to push 15000
May I ask whether you are using innodb or myisam? both on freebsd and Linux.
And what filesystem are you using for mysql's data files? UFS, ZFS or anything
else?
IIRC there's some hack to reduce gettimeofday()'s precision in advance to
enhance it's performance, that could also help a bit. Have you
Hello,
I'm using mysql 5.1.24-rc in 5 separate jails.
Question:
10 clients are pushing queries (10 separate machines). 2 clients to 1 mysql
daemon. One client is performing an update on param_stat_short_level_1_0,
second on param_stat_short_level_1_1.
Each client needs to push 15 queries
At 04:21 PM 10/20/2006, Mike Tancsa wrote:
The next set of comparisons I want to run is in our spam
scanners. The boxes which operate in round robin make heavy use of mysql, DNS
OK, we are just getting ready to run some tests for this
setup. SpamAssassin has some built in benchmarking that
>>If this is what you measured, the results look fairly competitive.
>>Thanks for performing this real-world test and posting this info.
>
>
>As I was saying to gnn offlist, you can look at these numbers all sorts of
>ways
In fact this type of result is not surprising at all, it has already been
f
At 04:06 PM 10/20/2006, Ed Maste wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:57:46PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> With all the threads about poor FreeBSD performance, I wanted to test
> it out myself to see how 64bit LINUX would compare using the same hardware.
[ snip ]
It seems your message ended up wit
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:57:46PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> With all the threads about poor FreeBSD performance, I wanted to test
> it out myself to see how 64bit LINUX would compare using the same hardware.
[ snip ]
It seems your message ended up with some unfortunate line wrapping,
which m
In response to Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> One strange thing is that FreeBSD thinks the box really has 5G of
> RAM, which is does not. Its just 4G However I am pretty sure
> thats just a cosmetic bug.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/troubleshoot.html#PAE
Cool
One of our larger db apps is our RT system
(http://bestpractical.com/). Our old RELENG_4 box was starting to
get long in the tooth, so it was time to put in faster disks (3ware
7000 in RAID1 vs 9500SX in RAID10) and more memory to help with
searches. Its not that CPU intensive, but it does
On 15/10/06, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
> Or did that change recently?
It's only on certain systems, appare
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:05:28PM +0100, Chris wrote:
> On 15/10/06, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >>> On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
> >> Or did t
On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Or did that change recently?
It's only on certain systems, apparently.
Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC w
I will do some testing tonight with variations in the my.cnf file and post
the results tomorrow.
> At 03:20 PM 10/6/2006, Jerry Bell wrote:
>>I have actually made the changes to my.cnf before I ran these. I
>> expanded
>>them quite a bit beyond what is in my-large.cnf. I need to pull them
>> bac
At 03:20 PM 10/6/2006, Jerry Bell wrote:
I have actually made the changes to my.cnf before I ran these. I expanded
them quite a bit beyond what is in my-large.cnf. I need to pull them back
Hi,
I was just looking at this thread as its relevant to a new
DB server I am trying to put tog
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
> >>>Or did that change recently?
> >>
> >>It's only on certain systems, apparently.
> >
> >Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with
> >SMP? Or some script we ca
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Or did that change recently?
It's only on certain systems, apparently.
Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with
SMP? Or some script we can run?
The problem of the TSC clocks getting out of sync affects pretty much
a
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:48AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Jerry Bell wrote:
I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G
of ram.
[...]
changed the clock to TSC
As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:48AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Jerry Bell wrote:
> > I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
> > [...]
> > changed the clock to TSC
>
> As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems.
>
> Or did that change recently?
Jerry Bell wrote:
> I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
> [...]
> changed the clock to TSC
As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems.
Or did that change recently?
Best regards
Oliver
--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz
I have actually made the changes to my.cnf before I ran these. I expanded
them quite a bit beyond what is in my-large.cnf. I need to pull them back
in to save on some memory usage. I'm going to look at some of the other
patches that have been suggested to me to see if they'll work and if they
ma
Quoting Divacky Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Fri, 6 Oct
2006 09:57:38 +0200):
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:52:51PM -0400, Jerry Bell wrote:
I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
I've looked through some of the lists here and have seen super-smack
results in
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:52:51PM -0400, Jerry Bell wrote:
> I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
> I've looked through some of the lists here and have seen super-smack
> results in the 42k qps range on a 2 dual core opteron system. I'm able to
> get up to abou
Yeah the static compiling recommendations by MySQL documents are really
more a linux thing more then anything else.
The other other thing to check is to make sure you use larger buffer
settings I recommend the large-my.cnf
cp /usr/local/share/mysql/my-large.cnf /var/db/mysql/
Then restart MySQL.
On Friday 06 October 2006 07:24, Jerry Bell wrote:
> I always thougt that compiling something static increased performance, but
> then that's probably true for things that have to startup and shutdown
> frequently.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Jerry
>
static compiling will link libpthread but not libthr.
Many thanks to all who responded. You are an incredibly smart group of
people.
The recompiling without static yielded much better results:
2950# super-smack -d mysql select-key-mysql.smack 10 1
Query Barrel Report for client smacker1
connect: max=1ms min=0ms avg= 0ms from 10 clients
Query_t
Jerry Bell wrote:
I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
I've looked through some of the lists here and have seen super-smack
results in the 42k qps range on a 2 dual core opteron system. I'm able to
get up to about 34k with the wide at the back of my server wh
On Thursday 05 October 2006 03:52, Jerry Bell wrote:
> I expected the 2950 to be a bit closer to the 1.8Ghz opteron discussed
> here:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.performance/1137/match=mysql
Well he used several patches [1] from the current + ULE scheduler, which seems
to give you
Jerry Bell skrev:
I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
I've looked through some of the lists here and have seen super-smack
results in the 42k qps range on a 2 dual core opteron system. I'm able to
get up to about 34k with the wide at the back of my server whi
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:52:51 -0400 (EDT)
"Jerry Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
> I've looked through some of the lists here and have seen super-smack
> results in the 42k qps range on a 2 dual core opteron system. I'm abl
I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram.
I've looked through some of the lists here and have seen super-smack
results in the 42k qps range on a 2 dual core opteron system. I'm able to
get up to about 34k with the wide at the back of my server whilest rubbing
the sid
Just retested on a dual dual core so 2 * as quick as before
Dual 265 ( 4 * 1.8 Ghz Cores )
== 4BSD + libthr + ACPI-Fast ==
super-smack -d mysql select-key.smack 100 1
Query Barrel Report for client smacker1
connect: max=36ms min=0ms avg= 18ms from 100 clients
Query_type num_queries
kern/kern_thread.c
Steve
- Original Message - From: "Sven Petai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: mysql performance on 4 * dualcore opteron
hi
Before I begin, let me just say that I'm probably aware most of the
threads about
On Saturday 08 April 2006 17:44, Michael Vince wrote:
> I have also tried putting my Perl under libthr for a single thread log
> analyzer and to my surprise it even could process logs faster.
>
I don't know why, but I only know I did some micro optimizations in libthr,
and the library is small and
在 Thursday 06 April 2006 17:12，Michael Vince 写道：
> I have also done benchmarking with libthr against Apache using 'ab' and
> found it can deliver an extra amount of megabytes/sec of data (I think
> it was about an extra 2000/requests sec) at the cost of giving the
> server from what I remember
On Saturday 08 April 2006 13:32, David Xu wrote:
> On Saturday 08 April 2006 17:44, Michael Vince wrote:
> > I have also tried putting my Perl under libthr for a single thread log
> > analyzer and to my surprise it even could process logs faster.
>
> I don't know why, but I only know I did some mic
David Xu wrote:
ÔÚ Thursday 06 April 2006 17:12£¬Michael Vince дµÀ£º
I have also done benchmarking with libthr against Apache using 'ab' and
found it can deliver an extra amount of megabytes/sec of data (I think
it was about an extra 2000/requests sec) at the cost of giving the
server fr
inal Message - From: "Sven Petai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: mysql performance on 4 * dualcore opteron
hi
Before I begin, let me just say that I'm probably aware most of the
threads about mysql performance in various fbsd lists
work I needed the attached patch which
is basically two failed chunks of: kern/kern_exit.c moved to kern/kern_thread.c
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Sven Petai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: mysql performance on 4 * dualco
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 08:31, David Xu wrote:
>
> Can you disable log-bin option in my.cnf to see if it is a FS bottleneck
> when you are running update-smack ? please run Linux and FreeBSD
> with same hardware and my.cnf configuration, thanks.
> I know this is not very right, but it can be us
在 Wednesday 05 April 2006 00:42，Sven Petai 写道：
>
> hi
>
> Before I begin, let me just say that I'm probably aware most of the threads
> about mysql performance in various fbsd lists over last couple of years, so
> please let's not consentrate on the usual poi
hi
Before I begin, let me just say that I'm probably aware most of the threads
about mysql performance in various fbsd lists over last couple of years, so
please let's not consentrate on the usual points made over and over again
like how filesystems are mounted under linux, how fast
Michael Vince wrote:
Joao Barros wrote:
No real difference here too...
I started a thread on that subject not long ago and following Robert's
tip setting net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0 yielded better results.
--
Joao Barros
___
With the new TCP/IP
Michael Vince wrote:
Joao Barros wrote:
On 1/26/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Murphey wrote:
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
transfers still av
Joao Barros wrote:
On 1/26/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Murphey wrote:
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
transfers still average at 10MB/s (a
Joao Barros wrote:
On 1/26/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Murphey wrote:
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
transfers still average at 10MB/s (al
On 1/26/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich Murphey wrote:
> > I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
> > effect on samba3 performance as well.
>
> No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
> transfers still average at 10MB/s (although it did peak at 2
Rich Murphey wrote:
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
transfers still average at 10MB/s (although it did peak at 20MB/s once)
Which is really horrible for a em gigabit link wit
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
This isn't very methodical, but I see about
60% increase samba3 read bandwidth (from 14MB/s to
26Mb/s) when changing from the default
kern.timecounter.hardware=i8254 to TSC, which
makes me wonder whether it mig
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Ivan Voras wrote:
Thomas Krause (Webmatic) wrote:
But with static linked libraries, I cannot switch between
libthread and libthr - right? Could somebody give me an inspiration/
recommendation?
Unless you are ready to count individual CPU cycles, you won't find a
notica
Thomas Krause (Webmatic) wrote:
But with static linked libraries, I cannot switch between
libthread and libthr - right? Could somebody give me an inspiration/
recommendation?
Unless you are ready to count individual CPU cycles, you won't find a
noticable difference between static and dynamic
Hi,
I've read a lot about mysql performance tuning - also
on this list.
1) I can switch from libpthread to libthr, which should
give a perfomance benefit. This is done in /etc/libmap.conf
2) I can build a static linked version of mysqld (BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes),
which should also g
On Thursday, 15 December 2005 at 22:18:58 -0800, Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 16 December 2005 at 11:20:12 +0800, huang leo wrote:
>>>
>>> We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 06:57:34 +
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ah thanks for correcting me, so libthr and libpthread are both new then in
> 5.x?
Yes.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
http://w
On 04/01/06, Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 01:28:07 +
> Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > have had mysql lockups until I tinkered with the threading settings.
> Libthr
> > is the good old threading routine from the 4.x days if I am correct, so
> if
>
On Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 10:49:48 +0800, Leo Huang wrote:
>> Personally I was surprised by this statement that libpthread wasn't
>> working for his test, for me it does benchmark a tad slower but I have
>> always seen libpthread as the most stable threading library.
>
> I am surprised too. B
situation from my last letter.
Best regards,
Leo Huang
2006/1/4, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Chris wrote:
>
> >On 01/01/06, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>huang leo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> &
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 01:28:07 +
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> have had mysql lockups until I tinkered with the threading settings. Libthr
> is the good old threading routine from the 4.x days if I am correct, so if
> libpthread is indeed unstable under continous heavy load how has it become
Chris wrote:
On 01/01/06, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
huang leo wrote:
Hi, all:
We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The result is
attached.
We are longing for your feedbacks!
Best regards,
Leo Huang
Really good work.
I gav
On 01/01/06, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> huang leo wrote:
>
> >Hi, all:
> >
> >We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The result is
> >attached.
> >
> >We are longing for your feedbacks!
> >
> >
>
huang leo wrote:
Hi, all:
We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The result is
attached.
We are longing for your feedbacks!
Best regards,
Leo Huang
Really good work.
I gave your results some thought and was thinking that maybe you should
check to see if you reached
Chris wrote:
Make sure your compile your MySQL dynamically which is done by default,
if you include 'BUILD_STATIC=yes' you ruin your ability to change
threading libs.
portupgrade -N -m 'BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes'
/usr/ports/databases/mysql41-server
Or upgrade
portupgrade -R -m 'BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes'
>
> Make sure your compile your MySQL dynamically which is done by default,
> if you include 'BUILD_STATIC=yes' you ruin your ability to change
> threading libs.
>
> portupgrade -N -m 'BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes'
> /usr/ports/databases/mysql41-server
> Or upgrade
> portupgrade -R -m 'BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes
On 17/12/05, Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gea-Suan Lin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:06:09AM +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
> >
> >>>And you should disable these options, it may increase ~10% again:
> >>>
> >>>-cpu I486_CPU
> >>>-cpu I586_CPU
> >>> cpu
Gea-Suan Lin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:06:09AM +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
And you should disable these options, it may increase ~10% again:
-cpu I486_CPU
-cpu I586_CPU
cpu I686_CPU
A recent discussion on -STABLE warned against removing I586_CPU,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:06:09AM +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
> > And you should disable these options, it may increase ~10% again:
> >
> > -cpu I486_CPU
> > -cpu I586_CPU
> > cpu I686_CPU
>
> A recent discussion on -STABLE warned against removing I586_CPU, r
So, is ULE ready for production on 6.0-RELEASE?
Can we use it without fear?
Cheers
Gea-Suan Lin wrote:
Hi,
In http://blog.gslin.org/archives/2005/12/12/252/ we test more cases,
and summary some important conclusions:
* SCHED_ULE (kernel options) is faster than SCHED_4BSD.
* Use kern.timecoun
> And you should disable these options, it may increase ~10% again:
>
> -cpu I486_CPU
> -cpu I586_CPU
> cpu I686_CPU
A recent discussion on -STABLE warned against removing I586_CPU, refer
to
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-December/02069
Hi,
In http://blog.gslin.org/archives/2005/12/12/252/ we test more cases,
and summary some important conclusions:
* SCHED_ULE (kernel options) is faster than SCHED_4BSD.
* Use kern.timecounter.choice=TSC (sysctl) will be faster than ACPI-fast
or ACPI-safe. (about 10% again)
And I notice you u
2005/12/16, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Friday, 16 December 2005 at 11:20:12 +0800, huang leo wrote:
>
> We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The result is
> attached.
Thank you!
This is some of the most plausible information I've seen
On Dec 15, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2005 at 11:20:12 +0800, huang leo wrote:
We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The
result is
attached.
Thank you!
This is some of the most plausible information I've seen
On Friday, 16 December 2005 at 11:20:12 +0800, huang leo wrote:
>
> We had evaluated MySQL performance on FreeBSD and Linux. The result is
> attached.
Thank you!
This is some of the most plausible information I've seen in a while.
I'm forwarding it to a MySQL internal list,
You should take a look at the context switch rate, which is apparentnly
sometimes an issue on Xeons. Switching to PostgreSQL might help too. ;P
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Wher
Hey there!
We've got a couple of fairly beefy mysql servers that just
aren't operating as fast as they should be. For instance, we have a
slave that is falling behind just with replication going on, even
though it doesn't seem to be constrained by any system parameter that
I've looke
79 matches
Mail list logo
