(anonymous) wrote: > Today^W Yesterday, I was asked about some file numbers, which involved > subcategory traversing, which is an "inefficient" problem. It seemed a > good problem for comparing toolserver and labs. And toolserver db sucks:
> willow: 31m5.157s (user 0m4.038s) > labs: 0m4.271s (user 2.488) > Toolserver was *436 times slower*. > Surely, the labs server is better (in hardware) than the one in TS. I > don't know how many scripts were hitting the TS db, while the labs one > would be almost-idle. Still, it seems a really big gap. Do we have > something wrongly configured? Did mariadb somehow massively improve vs > mysql? Are some parameters too small? Is it just a problem that the > mysql servers are underprovisioned of ram? IIRC, the replicated databases on Labs are hosted on SSDs so it's not really fair to compare them :-). What would proba- bly be a better benchmark are user databases on Toolserver and tools-db on Labs; the latter (different credentials than replicated databases) is on a VM with storage on a (IIRC spinning) NFS server, but that would of course neglect that the Toolserver databases have to cope with replication as well, while tools-db only holds the user databases. So I don't think an adequate comparison can be made. Tim _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
