Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:53:44 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mysql scaling questions Message-ID: <20080101122038.S9795@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <flb6bp$8kq$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20071201205609.GA54238@harmless.hu> <200712012108.lB1L8qAd005766@lava.sentex.ca> <20071201211012.GA55519@harmless.hu> <20071201122122.S884@192.168.1.107> <20071204130810.GA77186@harmless.hu> <47779AA7.2060801@FreeBSD.org> <20071230132451.GA61295@harmless.hu> <47779EBC.5020900@FreeBSD.org> <20071230134354.GA63555@harmless.hu> <4777A65C.8020406@FreeBSD.org> <20071230141118.GA67574@harmless.hu> <4777AB9C.1010003@FreeBSD.org> <flb6bp$8kq$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ivan Voras wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> It's a general question. It looks like myisam either has a design >> deficiency in this regard or it has poor defaults. If it can be made to >> improve caching of the data in userland then performance should improve. > > Isn't this common for software developed for Linux? I mean assuming > syscalls are cheap; for example: gettimeofday(2), settitle(2), etc. I > ... > Does anyone have a theory why syscalls are so expensive in FreeBSD? Here FreeBSD has more layers, with less optimization in each layer. Normally this doesn't matter, since everyone knows that syscalls are expensive and avoids them :-). > are the results of unixbench 4.1 on two machines. First is the machine > running FreeBSD HEAD (debugging disabled) on a dual-core Athlon 64 (i386 > mode), 2 GHz: > > INDEX VALUES > TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX > > Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 6467105.1 554.2 > Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1633.7 297.0 > Execl Throughput 43.0 2030.9 472.3 > File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 63783.0 161.1 > File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 57489.0 347.4 > File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 53476.0 92.2 > Pipe Throughput 12440.0 930715.9 748.2 > Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 204248.8 510.6 > Process Creation 126.0 5373.3 426.5 > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 563.7 939.5 > System Call Overhead 15000.0 720641.0 480.4 > ========= > FINAL SCORE 387.4 > > The second result is from a machine running Linux 2.6.22, dual-core Core > 2 Duo, 1.7 GHz, T2250, i386 mode (i.e. slower than the first machine): Isn't Core2 significantly faster than A64 at the same clock speed? Its larger L2 cache is likely to be especially helpful in benchmarks. > INDEX VALUES > TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX > > Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 5576224.9 477.8 > Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1521.6 276.7 > Execl Throughput 43.0 2734.1 635.8 > File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 316794.0 800.0 > File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 97964.0 591.9 > File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 665840.0 1148.0 > Pipe Throughput 12440.0 679339.1 546.1 No Pipe-based Context Switching? That should be included in benchmarks to show FreeBSD slowness :-), since it is affected by both slow syscalls and slow context switches. > Process Creation 126.0 11562.9 917.7 > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 316.0 526.7 > System Call Overhead 15000.0 1134690.6 756.5 > ========= > FINAL SCORE 625.2 > This is almost comparing apples to oranges, but the difference in > syscall-intensive operations (execl, syscall, process creation) seems > anomalous, since everything should go against the second machine. Um, execl and process creation are not syscall-intensive. They take about 1 syscall each. Linux wins this benchmark by a lot mainly because too much weight is given to the file copy benchmarks, using a number of files that just happens to cause more physical writes under FreeBSD than under Linux, mainly due to FreeBSD's policy of not letting the buffer cache/VMIO fill up with dirty buffers/pages. FreeBSD does much better with more files. FreeBSD does worse than I like for cases where physical writes aren't made by either OS. The source of this slowness seems to be the same as for syscalls but more so (vfs intentionally has lots of layers in FreeBSD). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080101122038.S9795>