From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 17:51:17 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8EFC38 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:51:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D23956 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u7so554455wey.5 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8886axiWTeenojbwDeKYrt4MF9YjAT4FOqYHJV2Yn3A=; b=vqRjdTAUnJHxKvi56BBGRj9hRijrFLWzCuB/QEKr47RAk3Tnp9+y/nIi0IHtsubgw3 zHzf2wiIP3WUXVorhvM6z2s6IqS6QE6j+zcTEEhKnSfTInFAjsNS94nd/zO61eWnSFZs UcVe4dRrwcUl1N6AhtM4Gl4FyqRCilxB2n5NHtRYcjai/ewzgislc/n4t6EMT67l/h+f JYZDzZDZcqfeffhx7ShvxjWJa36jqaoY4OJs+usv5nvew2tp0QJ6qhnOIQSbk6mDEswx Gkn31W7oh+iDYtrz7OopUFgDTjo1wboHRNYHrmLxWIXYvGtEbsEbr/0E5OGrX7Op+Ssk KKQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.22.5 with SMTP id z5mr13557164wje.5.1364147475849; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:51:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:51:15 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FiJZBzBLl_x4p4hLW3UPHf0Jonk Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adrian Chadd To: Adam Vande More Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Daniel Bilik , 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 17:51:17 -0000 The contention is due to memory allocations being page aligned and those pools all hitting the same cache line mappings. Adrian On 24 March 2013 09:09, Adam Vande More wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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"