From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 16:09:55 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26125BD4 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:09:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B635225A for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:09:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hj8so1229225wib.7 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:09:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eZF1SvbtQ/B2QhMHuQ2UGcaIAp2nChbaq/PCgULq5kM=; b=0auKsrjVUqXRJZVrODLCRMRnitpUcUZfb3qqXhDkBxk39OZeo0mUaCN66TddbqDjBk b9+12jHUvhEIEYuhXLV51DQcrer3+Sf+TD4V0hIsoieIQy64pLlX0RHoIbdCcSJgNgji u1zDeuTSKj3YkuaR/KY692dlLqNGi6fOvIa+K6oHtvYzaGva3b9eoJXF9wbEzxHLR6ep se8WdA11Avr6hw/CODVIGzWL1IKY48XI0uResay2Uy1IyAo5nKa2sQ5Kt3DUqtqXn68o 5mF/5mWUk9ciNGIhDqlTj80l8DOpayhkpFwh9/sURBZR3w8duDyKBhwS4ic32JKTPtfM izaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.94.135 with SMTP id dc7mr21022756wib.11.1364141393903; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.140.20 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:09:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:09:53 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adam Vande More To: Daniel Bilik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:09:55 -0000 I think increasing the number of arenas may help the contention, eg "ln -s 3N /etc/malloc.conf" On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: > These are interesting results. Did you try tuning any of the jemalloc > options in /etc/malloc.conf? > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Daniel Bilik wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:03:27 +0100 >> Davide D'Amico wrote: >> >> > Hi, I'm doing performance tests on a DELL R720, follows dmesg: >> > ... >> > I will use this server as a mysql-5.6 dbserver so I have a root >> > partition using a hw raid1 and a /DATAZFS partition, follows >> > configuration: >> > ... >> >> Well, it seems to be interesting coincidence... We've just finished >> benchmarking MySQL with various (m)allocators. The goal was to test >> tcmalloc, but when the system was up and running, we've taken the >> opportunity to benchmark also other alternatives... including jemalloc. >> All tests were performed on default MySQL 5.5.28 running on Debian Wheezy. >> Between the tests nothing was touched on the machine or the system, just >> allocators were changed (ie. mysqld restarted). >> >> Results for different test modes are available here... >> >> http://neosystem.cz/benchmark/mysql/ >> >> It seems there is notable performance penalty for read-only transactions >> when MySQL is using jemalloc. The more concurrent threads are running, the >> more is jemalloc losing to other allocators. The penalty is also there for >> read-write transactions, but not that significant (error bars in the >> histograms also show that results for read-write tests tend to be very >> unstable). OTOH in non-transactional tests, jemalloc seems to be in par >> with others, and under specific load can even outperform some of them. >> >> In your original post, there is not mentioned in what mode you've >> performed >> OLTP test, but according to numbers I suspect it was "complex", ie. >> transactional. Can you repeat tests (both on CentOS and FreeBSD) with >> --oltp-test-mode=nontrx and/or simple? >> >> -- >> Daniel Bilik >> neosystem.cz >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > > > -- > Adam Vande More -- Adam Vande More