Hi everybody, i would like to find benchmarks whose work with mysql-max.
I tested osdb 0.14 (http://osdb.sourceforge.net/). But i search other
benchmarks to have others results. I work on mysql-cluster. If you know
some of them please send me an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cordially,
Etienne
I found the article very interesting. It seems they couldn't trash
3ware cards enough.
We swear by 3ware cards -- other than the PCIX riser card issue, we
haven't a single problem with them. Our production database server is
running off of a RAID1 for the OS and a RAID10 for the data and every
Tweakers.net has completed a comparison of 9 serial ATA RAID 0/1/5/10
controllers at:
http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557
There is a specific section on MySQL performance in the section:
http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/25
Just thought these articles would be of interest to some (it's
Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know of any written stats on how much overhead for CPU/ Disk
IO replication has for a single master and a single slave?
I am looking for any detailed stats on the proformance issues associated
with replication.
In a very rough oversimplification,
Hi,
Does anyone know of any written stats on how much overhead for CPU/ Disk
IO replication has for a single master and a single slave?
I am looking for any detailed stats on the proformance issues associated
with replication.
thanks
-Nathan
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:57:02AM -0700, Nathan wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know of any written stats on how much overhead for CPU/
Disk IO replication has for a single master and a single slave? I
am looking for any detailed stats on the proformance issues
associated with replication.
JDBC driver supported the NamedPipeFactory
class at the time those benchmarks were taken. If it didn't, then what
you are seeing is an upper-bound imposed by I/O restrictions.
4. In MySQL 4.1.1, InnoDB is able to further benefit from the query
cache, as it can now use it outside of autocommit mode.
5
Adam Goldstein wrote:
What about a baseline of benchmerks for common, recent hardware using
the sql-bench tools?
I can't find anything like that- It would be nice to know how my
setup/server compares to other servers of the same or similar
ability.
You can try mysqlsyseval along with some
List,
Is there a site where I can see performance benchmarks on mySQL vs.
MS SQL Server 2000 ? We plan to migrate a database that's now running
under SQL Server 2000 to mySQL, because of online hosting costs, but our
boss is not so sure of doing that, he feels safe working under SQL
Server
Rodrigo Galindez wrote:
List,
Is there a site where I can see performance benchmarks on mySQL vs.
MS SQL Server 2000 ? We plan to migrate a database that's now running
under SQL Server 2000 to mySQL, because of online hosting costs, but
our boss is not so sure of doing that, he feels "
Daniel,
Whoa, very impressive ! ! ! Thanks, gonna print that graphs :)
Daniel Kasak wrote:
Rodrigo Galindez wrote:
List,
Is there a site where I can see performance benchmarks on mySQL vs.
MS SQL Server 2000 ? We plan to migrate a database that's now running
under SQL Server 2000 to mySQL
the NamedPipeFactory
class at the time those benchmarks were taken. If it didn't, then what
you are seeing is an upper-bound imposed by I/O restrictions.
4. In MySQL 4.1.1, InnoDB is able to further benefit from the query
cache, as it can now use it outside of autocommit mode.
5. This was done on Windows
Hi All,
Is there any AS3AP benchmark suite readily available for MySQL?
Thanks in advance,
Ram
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
Ranger could you please send to Ram our current version ?
You can also try OSDB - AS3AP implementation in C.
P.S For benchmarks issues it is better to use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list which is dedicated for this purpose.
--
Peter Zaitsev, Full-Time Developer
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
Want to swim
the benchmarks with a 'tuned' my.cnf (much more memory for
various variables). It looks to me like there is no significant
difference in the results.
I checked (with phpmyadmin, MySQL system variables) if the new my.cnf
was actually being used: it was.
JP
New my.cnf + benchmark results
Look in the support-files directory in the mysql directory. There are a
bunch of sample config files that you can look at that named pretty
obviously: small,medium,large,huge.
Each one has a description on what kind of system these should be used
on, based on RAM and usage. For instance, huge
This is what I'm currently using on the dual 2GHz w/4GB of RAM:
set-variable = query_cache_type=1
set-variable = query_cache_size=1024M
set-variable = net_buffer_length=32760
set-variable = bulk_insert_buffer_size=32M
set-variable= key_buffer=1024M
set-variable= join_buffer_size=128M
vs. 5215
secs), but all other benchmarks are somewhat slower on Panther. I'm a
bit worried about the 'select', which is about twice as slow on
Panther than on Jaguar (1428 secs vs. 743 secs).
Complete benchmark results below, sorry for the possible bandwidth
waste, but I'm not sure what I
(5561.00 secs vs. 6770.00 secs).
'Insert' is faster on Panther than on Jaguar (3316 secs vs. 5215
secs), but all other benchmarks are somewhat slower on Panther. I'm a
bit worried about the 'select', which is about twice as slow on
Panther than on Jaguar (1428 secs vs. 743 secs).
Complete benchmark
I was wondering if you had journaling turned on in Panther and not
in Jaguar? I'm not sure if it would have any effect on selects, I
would think it would slow down inserts not selects. You notice the
CPU breakdown is different.
Journaling was turned on in both cases.
JP
--
MySQL General
. 6770.00 secs).
'Insert' is faster on Panther than on Jaguar (3316 secs vs. 5215
secs), but all other benchmarks are somewhat slower on Panther. I'm a
bit worried about the 'select', which is about twice as slow on
Panther than on Jaguar (1428 secs vs. 743 secs).
Complete benchmark results
At 13:21 -0500 07-11-2003, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
[1.8 GHz G5:]
select: Total time: 1428 wallclock secs (67.50 usr 25.18 sys +
0.00 cusr 0.00 csys = 92.68 CPU)
[dual 2.0 GHz G5:]
select: Total time: 146 wallclock secs (42.52 usr 33.74 sys + 0.00
cusr 0.00 csys = 76.26 CPU)
How the select
At the conference a few months ago, the mysql team said that the
benchmarks they where running would be published
here
http://www.mysql.com/benchmarks but it doesn't look like this is the
link.
Basically I'm trying to figure out what a saturation level is for mysql
when it has 2 2.4Ghz Intel
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Very poor Solaris benchmarks
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:41:40PM -, Campbell, David wrote:
Can you identify any major differences in system and/or database
tuning? Perhaps you are using default config settings on the new
server
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:38:45PM -, Campbell, David wrote:
MYSQL Ver 8.23 Distrib 3.23.54,
sun-solaris2.8 [binary install]
Sun E4500
Hi we have some seriously bad benchmarks for MYSQL performance on a new
cluster - The problem seems to be IO, but the box is doing nothing:
Can you
Can you identify any major differences in system and/or database
tuning? Perhaps you are using default config settings on the new
server, but tuned settings on the old?
I have tuned MYSQL using my.cnf settings.
Of the two benchmarks one comes from the tests we ran and the others
.
Of the two benchmarks one comes from the tests we ran and the others are
provided by AB to compare.
Tuning MYSQL couldn't/shouldn't account from shocking IO performance should
it?
Probably not.
I admit that I scanned your message very quickly (I am in the middle
of a few critical tasks
Hi,
Sorry for my english ;-)
I've made some benchs on a SUN v880 with Solaris 8 (4 cpus). I must
enable direct IO on the file system whitch support the dataspace (for
innodb tables). If not, i've problems with threads (no more instances of
mysqld). Why ? i don't know, i just notice it.
Best
MYSQL Ver 8.23 Distrib 3.23.54,
sun-solaris2.8 [binary install]
Sun E4500
Hi we have some seriously bad benchmarks for MYSQL performance on a new
cluster - The problem seems to be IO, but the box is doing nothing:
The first set of results are the benches the second results are from my new
mysql
I'm using still a very small MySQL database -just testing yet- but I read
many people talking about some Gigas of data. I wonder where can I find some
benchmarks about MySQL with various O.S.
I work with MySQLFront and:
Is there a way not to loose data when I change a field i.e from INT
Hello,
I just took over and restructured an existing web site
running on IIS/PHP/ODBC/MS Access.
The site is up and running now (thanks to your help too..), but now
the customer is speaking of adding MUCH more content to the database,
(~10/50x increase) and to add search capability all over its
Has anyone used MySQL with perl to create a web interface with a database
that contains 100 or more tables that have 200,000 to 500,000 rows of data
each? I am interested to know if any performance issues have been
encountered and if any solutions were found. We are looking to create a new
he development team I am currently with is considering using MySql. However, as part
of the we require the actual benchmarks that were used as well as the results. Is it
possible to have a set of the SQL queries in the form
CREATE TABLE t ( n NOT NULL VARCHAR(100));
INSERT INTO t VALUES
Roger Norton writes:
he development team I am currently with is considering using MySql. However, as
part of the we require the actual benchmarks that were used as well as the results.
Is it possible to have a set of the SQL queries in the form
CREATE TABLE t ( n NOT NULL VARCHAR(100
Hi,
I am considering developing a project on mySQL or InterBase. I tried to
find comparisons, benchmarks, etc, but found nothing...
Could anyone point me to such documents?
If anyone cares, I wrote a small PHP script to benchmark both DB.. it's
really simple, but shows mySQL is faster all
35 matches
Mail list logo
