Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Andy Hilker wrote: > > >>Hi, >> >>You (Craig Rodrigues) wrote: >> >>>On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:35:56PM +0100, Andy Hilker wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>i have used mysql41 with linuxthreads since a few month without problems. >>>>Now linuxthreads from ports does not compile and i wanted to try >>>>without linuxthreads. >>> >>>Look at the mailing list archives for the freebsd-threads >>>mailing list. There was some discussion about mysql. >>> >>>http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads >>>http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads/2004-January/ >> >>It seems that i have a similar issue like >> >>http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads/2004-February/001660.html >> >>But maybe it is not fixed or exists again. >>Bumping up thread sysctls or using libmap.conf are not better. mySQL >>becomes very unresponsive. > > > Mysql uses scope system threads which are limited to > kern.threads.max_groups_per_proc. System scope threads > seem to have unfair scheduling also. I use SCHED_4BSD > and this patch to mysql40-server to make it use process > scope threads and it works much better: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/mysql40-server.diffs > > I haven't made a patch to other versions of mysql, but I > have sent the maintainer the patch. > Having MySQL work 'out of the box' is a critical item for the success of FreeBSD 5.3 and beyond. Should your patch be incorporated into the port? What are the tradeoffs between system and process scope threads in this situation? Since issues with system scope threads seem to come up alot, what will it take to make them no longer be a problem? ScottReceived on Sat Mar 20 2004 - 23:15:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC