Marian Hettwer wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Robert Watson wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Marian Hettwer wrote: >> >>> I'm using RC1 on some of my test servers and workstations. So far, >>> it runs very good (as in stable and fast) :) However, I thought of >>> doing a small benchmark of MySQL in comparison to Linux 2.6.8 >>> (Debian Sarge) and the results are kinda... shocking. >>> >>> On FreeBSD I took a pretty much generic kernel, I just removed >>> debugging options, added SMP and changed the scheduler from BSD to >>> ULE. I used super-smack to do a select-key test. MySQL 4.1 was build >>> from ports with BUILD_OPTIMIZED and BUILD_STATIC >> >> >> >> Could you: >> >> - Switch back to 4BSD >> > yep. > by the way, back in the days of FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x, after I did a > config MYKERNEL, it doesn't said I need to do a "make cleandepend" > before doing a "make depend"... why that? Seems like this additional > step in compiling the Kernel is around since 6-CURRENT, right? > > Here we go with a super-smack with 4BSD (but unchanged libmap.conf)... > Kernel is apart from scheduler still the same like the on uploaded at > http://unixoid.de/rabauke/freebsd/ > I did the select-smack 4 times. This is now: 4BSD, MySQL 4.1.14, > BUILD_STATIC, BUILD_OPTIMIZED: > > select_index 200000 2 0 3776.34 > select_index 200000 2 0 3802.04 > select_index 200000 2 0 3809.38 > select_index 200000 2 0 3796.41 > > Numbers are quite the same with 4BSD... > > >> - Use libmap to configure the mysql server to use libthr instead of >> libpthread >> > uh. Last time I fiddled around with libmap.conf was back in FreeBSD > 5.1 ... could you enlighten me a wee bit in regards to libmap.conf ? :) > If not, I'll stress google a bit and hopefully find something useful... > > >> And see what that does to performance using otherwise identical >> configurations? >> > my.cnf is pretty much my-medium.cnf on Debian and FreeBSD. Although, > Debian has MySQL 4.1.11 and FreeBSD Ports has MySQL 4.1.14. > As mentioned before, this benchmark here is a quick shot. However, the > difference shouldn't be _that_ large (3600 vs. 14000). > > I have run the exact same test and have had much higher benchmarks (close to double) using my-large.cnf or my-huge.cnf. I am able to get 23,626 compared to your 3,800 on the 5.4 and I am sure with out a doubt I could get higher on 6.0. The most important thing to remember about this benchmark is that its not really a good test for MySQL performance for a lot of database setups as its testing many queries at the same time performance, the services I run largely have only 1 or maybe 2 connected constantly querying clients. So its much more important for a single query to just be able to get its data fast more them having 50 different clients doing a queries at the same time for me and a lot of other db setups out there. Here is a copy and paste of a post I did a while ago I compiled 4.0 MySQL with some optimizations portupgrade -RN -m 'BUILD_STATIC=yes BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes' /usr/ports/databases/mysql40-server/ Copied the default large my.cnf profile cp /usr/local/share/mysql/my-large.cnf /var/db/mysql/my.cnf # super-smack /usr/share/smacks/select-key.smack 50 1000 Query Barrel Report for client smacker1 connect: max=44ms min=11ms avg= 20ms from 50 clients Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 100000 3 0 23626.76 If I delete the /var/db/mysql/my.cnf and restart mysql so I get default configuration, I get 13398.76 # super-smack /usr/share/smacks/select-key.smack 50 1000 Query Barrel Report for client smacker1 connect: max=29ms min=7ms avg= 17ms from 50 clients Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 100000 7 0 13398.76 MikeReceived on Fri Oct 28 2005 - 06:13:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:46 UTC