For the past month or so we've been testing CURRENT with MySQL 5.1.20 as one of our replicated slaves. Performance has been very good, for the most part; easily comparable to Linux and Solaris, and finally something we can seriously look at running in production. Many thanks to everyone who's helped make this happen! The one problem we have noticed is with replication. This graph shows it quite well: http://voi.aagh.net/db5.rbsov-daily-cpu.png You can see a steady rise in system time over a 9 hour period until it's so high replication falls behind and it drops out of load. The sudden drop after many hours of being pegged with a single CPU is me doing a STOP SLAVE;START SLAVE -- system time returns to normal, and all is well. It's easier to see in top(1); after an hour or so, the replication thread will be using about 5% more CPU than expected, and this will rise slowly until SHOW PROCESSLIST shows it spending most of its time in 'init' and top's IO display shows 100,000+ VCSW (when it's normally rare to see it pass 20,000). ktrace does not show much; a couple of times I've seen ~10 umtx ops repeating in groups rather a lot (when 2 would be more normal) but this isn't particularly repeatable. I've verified this behavior with ULE (2.0 and 3.0 + ulehtt+topology patches), and 4BSD, however it doesn't occur on Linux 2.6.20.4 or in another CURRENT machine with MySQL 4.1. I had planned on testing with libthread, but sadly the system I was testing on has now been replaced with Linux. Some numbers: 2 * Opteron 285 (dual core 2.6GHz), 16GB memory, 24 SAS disks in RAID10 with gmirror+gstripe, running UFS2. We see about 80 UPDATE and 180 INSERTs per second, with >10 million row InnoDB and MyISAM tables (and most of those MyISAM tables in a 900 million row MERGE). I'll be migrating our other CURRENT test MySQL server to 5.1 for further testing shortly. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst http://hur.st/Received on Thu Aug 02 2007 - 01:56:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:15 UTC