From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 00:08:34 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 B243BEBF for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:08:34 +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 552E51D1 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u7so242075wey.33 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:08:33 -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=KpAsEhBX2cAAWMugyaWT4pjEJO5oJmrQsVtw180upnk=; b=juPyx2JDjOYnNq+ODbQFFSFr+vbMBCCwFQLLOHdC4aEc6pUZLHItunBwNOF511iEmB vOD8QuOohiKe/jl3OoPZd0xli6ABYT2cuo4/FRUwhE/TW6e7HJnUQQwg2tRMnfZdmD+P rcZ3COKAzg20nSlCD/MCICrU4bd+24RHfJsbnUqPeyRiNy7o2NuAX+dKPVOiGywCS1jL j5AfQ2J1N076DYQDiu/W4pdU69cuHYbHzsqVHTyiNw9DF3GgANiUpHgBjLhlbaChBAob 9XbWuyqvlITCb7UbJTBn/kcGvA9f0msntXKiDYZca+bdW2hI/jJmvu5Ujeqg8dRZ30zD uwzw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.22.5 with SMTP id z5mr10564376wje.5.1364083713458; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:08:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:08:33 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FBgtncXUQzf_WnlnuoOh7TPRx0M Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adrian Chadd To: Daniel Bilik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 00:08:34 -0000 Hi, I recall that there were significant issues with jemalloc on computational loads, primarily because of the alignment jemalloc ends up giving to various allocation sizes and the cache-busting behaviour of that. Does anyone remember the thread in which that happened? Maybe someone posted a patch that lets people quickly tweak jemalloc to try and avoid this? Adrian On 23 March 2013 13:34, 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" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 00:20:40 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 74F5544E; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:20:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E290326E; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:20:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id dq12so291457wgb.12 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:20:33 -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=uJMw1pad+HygDF696VP8QrVHwuRonrr1KDsglSMT4Rg=; b=e2/pecxyVWdVav312p2WoZ9a9ebp1GQYHnbJfbfVFCIAvMpj+JvKOkZe2ge8TJ8WFP jVIfvDNRJV+NVeK8a1LUUn7RucTz/v++i/5W6rBPcmyooP/WvFUGiY6YPy3paUStqG/N FDWB7zOVackE/0eNOIhuOYy4mbI/5Uqa3ljQoXoAorBJei0jm5yHqCPFy9DuOwxqzsel zUvhfUwsC92JiHXJfBv3U03lbIGU3UR2EJl+zO4C4GEd3+boHd2BZC1fbQ9uK5iMHWa5 H53TxQalHxyVt4OTwfVoBLkP6hETgTI/vY6LfRkepOW1OT6Y3rLxrLC5cFW+yKhhDovc GjhA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.185.170 with SMTP id fd10mr18733934wic.0.1364084433120; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.140.20 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:20:33 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adam Vande More To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 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 00:20:40 -0000 On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > I recall that there were significant issues with jemalloc on > computational loads, primarily because of the alignment jemalloc ends > up giving to various allocation sizes and the cache-busting behaviour > of that. > > Does anyone remember the thread in which that happened? Maybe someone > posted a patch that lets people quickly tweak jemalloc to try and > avoid this? > I think you mean this one: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2013-January/041624.html From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 03:14:17 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 B87BBF37 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:14:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56534948 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:14:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn17so9069507wib.16 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -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=+lAV9OeyJ0k6kUM5kzLfV7urGePkJyYXybbuanoQ2RA=; b=0WKGIzGi+yzTo1SHfsrbXI3eS/vZgBvgjUld2UpHatBWRL2vEBXITFlEkOBLN1JgxT EusJGLl0tmrgg0+cyJgALp7vu+jIH+r34OoUo3o/IyWJrXVR6S2lBMEqDzPQTqQ4Do0X Od2BmTxcbLTBy8+CxDI6GEM2Fl2HayPB3U1IzDBX42lnZoNw+AHVaW1h1ToUauCJOpjp ZOMpNpwbVKauVpa8ry7jAA0cRdkX7W/l7IgBsA74LM4b9GlcAwkyTK+TlsX3ld9gYXT2 u7KU6Co7ZNvuMq+dsqz4CFAAug/W6zMwIA8aUOUqR1N+QqDFSJ8VclfqO8UeHjeLU9K8 gb6Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.6 with SMTP id f6mr18712885wix.26.1364094856469; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MvbC1WvHOXFt06_KQC2SYwEWdWs 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 03:14:17 -0000 Yup, that one. I wonder if that has anything to do here.. Adrian On 23 March 2013 17:20, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I recall that there were significant issues with jemalloc on >> computational loads, primarily because of the alignment jemalloc ends >> up giving to various allocation sizes and the cache-busting behaviour >> of that. >> >> Does anyone remember the thread in which that happened? Maybe someone >> posted a patch that lets people quickly tweak jemalloc to try and >> avoid this? > > > I think you mean this one: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2013-January/041624.html > From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 05:59:38 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 73861D7E for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:59:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E211F0 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:59:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1364104769; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=Fm+F89Z1tKyg49zwoROaV7rJoghmBeH6VIwx0R/ICdI=; b=gnwh7JwPKChxztXI60rvbe79vGQXm1P40im5ykvHVPPgVk4BeIJQpgpy6/nMpKaF I9JNk5sdoRVFdtq8MeJ3dseU/bkF3LqBOpa9LdLso8VPID+E+FK9hYcZiyyx0ZmU l2VSaNnxCt1VmLkb/P5OIe/nMrMi5oU2mxH3tUvAThI=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:35527] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id F0/90-24145-1469E415; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:59:29 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UJdxp-0004jo-AZ for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:59:29 +0100 Received: (qmail 18213 invoked by uid 80); 24 Mar 2013 05:59:29 -0000 To: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 X-PHP-Script: uebmeil.sys.tomatointeractive.it/index.php for 172.16.16.228 X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:main.inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:59:29 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico Organization: ContactLab Mail-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> Message-ID: <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> X-Sender: davide.damico@contactlab.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: davide.damico@contactlab.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:59:38 -0000 Il 22.03.2013 16:56 Евгений Хоркин ha scritto: > Hi Davide! Sorry if I do a reply 'here' but some posts where filtered by antispam. To Daniel Bilik: yes, I used the 'complex' OLTP tests, because more similar to my production dataset/workload. I'll try the 'simple' dataset, but do you think I have some chance to "solve" the issue? Thanks, d. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 06:10:03 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 E7D13159 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:10:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vb0-x233.google.com (mail-vb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::233]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD965308 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id fq11so3425230vbb.10 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:03 -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=xrxSUtMfJgLa7SABJqD6ezA5vAFGaEHhuOjHhPKboFE=; b=D4CDw4iKJzPrjtrKgNBKlrfF6c+dV3Oq9WfPVhf/RPnIwWaa14R46DO+cP+g4P65m3 ukKcx6k5e9YncZ0IALPcql8/b4fESJjlPCrih3yu/PlXUIi3iRlosZNvZM4mzq7ZBhAi +qQs6QGiy6O57pGHDJUJHr3T0yr+ok14D9XAlYLaAB15BlIAHHhXP7YD6ngCVExJ9tsp Y8vJ3M4GnZF2tmlRLMWFqZ4uotVqbizgEuLqju3kYAjAyYNM9C0bT/8p+W5x1ntSCJb7 LymwV4ltx2Jj5jH/tnsTfjJhi0VXe5XPi6d/qSAZudlbRAzo3qw4PeY7CE2eelHlRu4O gVRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.40.9 with SMTP id i9mr9951239vce.23.1364105402864; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.132.203 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:10:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk To: davide.damico@contactlab.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 06:10:04 -0000 On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Davide D'Amico < davide.damico@contactlab.com> wrote: > Il 22.03.2013 16:56 =D0=95=D0=B2=D0=B3=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=A5=D0= =BE=D1=80=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=BD ha scritto: > >> Hi Davide! >> > > Sorry if I do a reply 'here' but some posts where filtered by antispam. > > To Daniel Bilik: yes, I used the 'complex' OLTP tests, because more > similar to my production dataset/workload. > > I'll try the 'simple' dataset, but do you think I have some chance to > "solve" the issue? > > Thanks, > d. > > Since you are testing CentOS , is there a difference between Fedora and CentOS ? If you tried this alternative or your idea about difference if you did not try it . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 07:27:05 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 D878ADC3 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:27:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6843CD18 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:27:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1364110023; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=Mr7W6zWBfex9coGurKISq9PI8UkZb+VnZwPlwkIYz7M=; b=c1iSVlhKAsDLegjZK/xZrd0DOdR+tQApM4MdGSS6QIEA4Vp4TDfto3a3Qw3d+4Xe pm0K3WyIUPCsjlDZ7OjIUcz3OGtC3xHq7lImJi5+9viwu+wRYqOohptN150917lG reihx9/5WMUmPlD8axcZ+3kx622fSIa8vdngFgVJVmY=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:17775] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id BF/0D-24145-7CAAE415; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:27:03 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UJfKZ-0009AO-3M for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:27:03 +0100 Received: (qmail 35235 invoked by uid 80); 24 Mar 2013 07:27:03 -0000 To: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 X-PHP-Script: uebmeil.sys.tomatointeractive.it/index.php for 172.16.16.50 X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:main.inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:27:03 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico Organization: ContactLab Mail-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> Message-ID: <0ef1c644c38ac78cfc74288b1ca736f6@sys.tomatointeractive.it> X-Sender: davide.damico@contactlab.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: davide.damico@contactlab.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:27:05 -0000 Il 24.03.2013 07:10 Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ha scritto: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Davide D'Amico > wrote: > >> Il 22.03.2013 16:56 Евгений Хоркин ha scritto: >> >>> Hi Davide! >> >> Sorry if I do a reply 'here' but some posts where filtered by >> antispam. >> >> To Daniel Bilik: yes, I used the 'complex' OLTP tests, because more >> similar to my production dataset/workload. >> >> I'll try the 'simple' dataset, but do you think I have some chance to >> "solve" the issue? >> >> Thanks, >> d. > > Since you are testing CentOS , is there a difference between Fedora > and CentOS ? > If you tried this alternative or your idea about difference if you > did not try it . > Well, I tried only CentOS because I have some server in farm with CentOS, so I don't think I'll test Fedora (I tend to minimize the number of OS in my farm). d. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 08:11:55 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 024EFEBE for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:11:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8770B271 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:11:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1364112713; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=Jof9HN+5txOPqz8ZPN5LILw7KWUuMs5jJW/cKlxHBq4=; b=DpT9SH1dRWMPuhsFb/FXZgjr8r6XGqJ1Mg6IrxlF68/Z6RH8DJe4GCaESU55paVy vHabf9cRbtY6aJt78V4hYyjI6usls5L08to74Y5/aggDVonOlZ+X5tkrPc59lo04 H7f5zXb4Z+/zNhDBKBOjWmLfeb3F2Jj9z5arsaTM8CI=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:15472] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id 80/D8-24145-945BE415; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:11:53 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UJg1x-00047S-59 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:11:53 +0100 Received: (qmail 15834 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2013 08:11:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.200.19?) (127.0.0.1) by mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan with SMTP; 24 Mar 2013 08:11:52 -0000 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Davide D'Amico Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:11:53 +0100 To: Daniel Bilik Message-ID: 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 08:11:55 -0000 Ok, I'll try tomorrow and I'll post results here. Some particular parameter to use? Daniel Bilik ha scritto: >On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:59:29 +0100 >Davide D'Amico wrote: > >> I'll try the 'simple' dataset, but do you think I have some chance to > >> "solve" the issue? > >Not sure. But in case you'll get much more similar (CentOS vs. FreeBSD) >results from "simple" OLTP test, as opposed to very differrent numbers >for "complex", it's probable that the cause can be somewhere in >jemalloc, >as we've observed in our tests. And at this point, we can rule out >anything else (ZFS, scheduler, etc.) and knowledgeable people can focus >on one specific piece of code. > >-- > Daniel Bilik > neosystem.cz -- d. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 07:42:49 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 2DA6A621 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:42:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz) Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (mail.neosystem.cz [94.23.169.88]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED756F1F for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (unknown [127.0.10.15]) by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99A8CDAB; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:42:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.neosystem.cz Received: from neon.sn.neosystem.cz (unknown [172.19.9.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE727CDA5; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:42:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:38:02 +0100 From: Daniel Bilik To: davide.damico@contactlab.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-Id: <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz> In-Reply-To: <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> Organization: neosystem.cz X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:27:02 +0000 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 07:42:49 -0000 On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:59:29 +0100 Davide D'Amico wrote: > I'll try the 'simple' dataset, but do you think I have some chance to > "solve" the issue? Not sure. But in case you'll get much more similar (CentOS vs. FreeBSD) results from "simple" OLTP test, as opposed to very differrent numbers for "complex", it's probable that the cause can be somewhere in jemalloc, as we've observed in our tests. And at this point, we can rule out anything else (ZFS, scheduler, etc.) and knowledgeable people can focus on one specific piece of code. -- Daniel Bilik neosystem.cz From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 09:47:30 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 3C5312170 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:47:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz) Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (mail.neosystem.cz [IPv6:2001:41d0:2:5ab8::10:15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8CF10F for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:47:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (unknown [127.0.10.15]) by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FCDCE99; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:47:25 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.neosystem.cz Received: from neon.sn.neosystem.cz (unknown [172.19.9.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8824CCE93; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:47:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:36:48 +0100 From: Daniel Bilik To: Davide D'Amico Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-Id: <20130324103648.5df136009292994a41f39104@neosystem.cz> In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz> Organization: neosystem.cz X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:27:12 +0000 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 09:47:30 -0000 On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:11:53 +0100 Davide D'Amico wrote: > Ok, I'll try tomorrow and I'll post results here. Some particular > parameter to use? Well, sysbench's "simple" is really simple ;-), it performs a single SELECTs (unlike "nontrx", which can be made to perform also writes). Table size you've chosen, 10M of rows, is IMHO reasonable, as it can be considered "big" table but at the same time it should fit into memory completely (so you don't unintentionally pull controller and/or disks into the picture). I would also recommend to disable query cache for the test, as it can influence the results for some test modes (and not only positively). -- Daniel Bilik neosystem.cz From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 14:11:46 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 1136F51D for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:11:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bill.totman@gmail.com) Received: from mail-da0-x235.google.com (mail-da0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0099CC0 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-da0-f53.google.com with SMTP id n34so1738600dal.40 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uLDUUJSXGCgvYZuIh8jhol7ae1Ux4u1HYwDxNUL8UKU=; b=RiseHGnSaqSZroQ7EHp4AQjWuY9ccVn2quviKixIxRUGQWmt/qSiUzU0bZCp53tAy/ 66enAmnD+LUMBUKXNsU7x9nEYkyW0LQprKVN9/cnhFsGUXSdCFLnOZnE752OfUds9c68 4usvKCwWTu7NHnVlTsQTM7l6z9GqaIoahqdKXzyFVTEDRUkMd63MWUJprA8qLQ9w4y0K 4QLYpRoVuJovGr85rGvk1i7xxDrKSha7BXBgGRcuq/Sn80PLUw573mqTLnwkpT1XhpEL rMLVm71VzyqhYynuBtXUeAZjeyXqbg03UiiNnEPHxQs9CddbznuQWV+RoHW1tZr52ihW 6n0Q== X-Received: by 10.66.49.202 with SMTP id w10mr13043559pan.174.1364134305666; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Bills-MacBook-Pro.local (cpe-98-14-156-98.nyc.res.rr.com. [98.14.156.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sd8sm3544224pbb.33.2013.03.24.07.11.43 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <514F099D.9040005@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:11:41 -0400 From: Bill Totman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davide.damico@contactlab.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 References: <1363998883.22604.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5d10e2a0b0f6477293459a26df1fc272@sys.tomatointeractive.it> In-Reply-To: <5d10e2a0b0f6477293459a26df1fc272@sys.tomatointeractive.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 14:11:46 -0000 On 3/23/13 3:44 AM, Davide D'Amico wrote: > Il 23.03.2013 01:34 Paul Pathiakis ha scritto: >> Hi, >> >> There are several things about this that are highly suspect. >> >> First, wipe out the hardware RAID. The processor doing RAID >> computation is, probably, MUCH slower than a core on the CPU. Even if >> it's RAID-1 (Simple Mirror) this RAID card is performing tasks that is >> does not need to do including replicating writes to two targets from >> the controller or checking it's cache, battery, etc. If it's possible >> to disable the onboard cache, do it. > > Hi Paul, > thanks for your suggestions (some of them I've applied before starting > any consideration, like disabling all on-disk caches or controller > buffers) I'll try next monday. > > Anyway, the fact is that using the same hardware configuration > (raid1+raid10) I saw that a centos 6.x outperformed freebsd 9.1. > Another test I made yesterday was: on the same hardware I installed > vmware esx 5.x and created a vm with centos inside it. The result was > really impressive: the centos vm outperformed the 'real' freebsd 9.1 > too and checking vmware performances graphs I didn't see any huge need > for a massive throughput (I saw values from KBps to 10MBps), instead I > saw a big use of CPU (using OLTP tests with a concurrency of 32 > threads it's performaces began to slow down). > So, what happened when you installed FreeBSD 9.1 in the VM? How did the 'fake' FreeBSD 9.1 compare 1) to the 'real', and 2) to either of the CentOS installations? -bt > I don't know is using some magic value for HZ or setting some trick > with scheduler, I could gain something: I hope so, because I don't > want to "pinguinate" my farm :) > > Thanks, > d. > > _______________________________________________ > 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" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 15:33:53 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 3F608911 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:33:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F8AFD4 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id d7so4427899wer.36 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:33:51 -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=ZjrZCDVwCelC8x1EDvIfKEWPM6s/oMIwuNV6CG984wM=; b=R84v+LwEGiCt6oK/bJFLv2ReFqxojSLt1Mqgoa0o7Nb+uAV1at7Z/uFs9PEAWUDHJa jslpgFWqFkvlkk82FQ7WHHywCRbWDaYWKiNcPiFrC1PbWfxgv64M5TY48zL9RvpcQU92 WcNwgqZZ/ZFG7L9zqPosXE5JHzI1Fmh2PISxVjxwv60SqudPXK6Dgiip3meck7blPazK 5ygF3mRrXEv83Dyl+THOO1uBreK5HXYRjmsvdCjyIs+DmCFP7UYlQMK0Y+aLkloIBscY ZP+nk7vfKFYDF+fHElz9a9WKGY32o7dd/zzzB5PoeAuOmVkGJYRZgQpO1A0FEgpOMIs3 O3bg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.11.164 with SMTP id ej4mr12712113wid.29.1364139231380; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <514F099D.9040005@gmail.com> References: <1363998883.22604.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5d10e2a0b0f6477293459a26df1fc272@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <514F099D.9040005@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:33:51 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dPoZgBGjRp4ei3hyLR2Oz5n6dCY Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adrian Chadd To: Bill Totman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: davide.damico@contactlab.com, 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 15:33:53 -0000 ... and how about setting up MySQL inside a Linux jail? Say, installing debian/kfreebsd in a jail and then testing mysql in there? Adrian From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 15:43:55 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 C7B07C2D for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:43:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pathiaki2@yahoo.com) Received: from nm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.212.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DFC42EA for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.139.215.141] by nm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Mar 2013 15:43:48 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.198] by tm12.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Mar 2013 15:43:48 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Mar 2013 15:43:48 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 435048.16556.bm@omp1007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 19234 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Mar 2013 15:43:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1364139828; bh=uCY+nLC8icwOsqOCMyrvOWaFemIm6NGT05n5vr5lkI8=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DNIoMbEbds1zH+wGojk6kEt2T4m5iOJAZwhf6K4GoG8VTLCgojlmE7drDJgddSp7Oi1nnxZSB5rwWtxVtHt3REGL48Acxhy/vnz3IyqQ87jM0dszQpzN52CDCTX94b0uoYok32xfiuqUvsnTXQh4UsHzVxsaGy+v18muRULrCRU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Y7uIKqcxHyP8NTRM/tPwE1hy23BiVhRnI83VvVrz7XwJj9YZwS2GV+hJSFYARwq7+NXyMGCoAChFVVyMGWchIf4RDYztcgdm8Kj0LwDRuL5YF7zHu37yJDb/K+o86WK0dVsjbMJk7EcrCirjIGTcCxq4r9ACLBq2fSAwc/F3bw4=; X-YMail-OSG: 4hRr5n0VM1nUelgEpSWyDICW0RAtTRo_aPgMMkhsGLWFHCv 9kT944kPPYFOPcjvJKNNnU3DBgHbrQSH0FFNXfyqEGVTHKlwsFxPbeBTrflC 0b.vYNB7VERoCmnW3htKLW_gcK356IXT0e1lolTsMRlw1nipNji7GXsOQ20e 248xeBTPP1zqlCWfswL.NZu_DDA3WXCRoECuoY_6Cs96B3FSvqszIaN1mcVH HQwKMCFnLfdeaIQ9cW5m4IpAJpuiqWAdYafGeflJTk9QF1aElH6NCigQYsWg .G1j6Q3dLYVwhImfVoCcVx2lQZ9PiGCqnx6xt5s3VBtf604_BPk_QkXlvxwv .jEjtWQzoZvpisz95x5yV9bup0oYAybyp7AzYn2IMDrNpoIYXJkBeEv_3rmP LVEGWmNuZ5saVmdZF_94_cT3Kl9tUACHM31R5TlH5iu7.8_XPl7lesMi8ySM hfJ1oLOdJisjuUdzyes7vZz9XxSEeahXt5U_V4qBEDT.sa0dQIV1W9s5j59_ l9c3mFxcKnqrtnHiIqA-- Received: from [66.189.28.218] by web141405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:43:48 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, SSBoYXZlbid0IHdvcmtlZCB3aXRoIENlbnRPUyBzaW5jZSA2LjAuwqAgSSB3b3JrIG9uIG1hbnkgb3RoZXIgdmFyaWFudHMgYXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lLsKgIEknbSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gaGFwcHkgdG8gdGFrZSBhIGxvb2sgYWZ0ZXIgSSBnZXQgbXkgY29tcGFueSBvZmYgdGhlIGdyb3VuZC4uLi7CoCAoQSBjb3VwbGUgbW9yZSBtb250aHMgb3IgbGFuZCBteSBuZXh0IGNvbnRyYWN0aW5nIGdpZykKCgpBbnlob3cswqAgdW5saWtlIHdpdGggamFpbHMsIGl0IHNlZW1zIG5vIG1hdHRlciB3aGF0IHR5cGUgb2YgVk0gSSABMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.138.524 References: <1363998883.22604.YahooMailNeo@web141401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5d10e2a0b0f6477293459a26df1fc272@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <514F099D.9040005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1364139828.17881.YahooMailNeo@web141405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:43:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Pathiakis Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 To: Bill Totman , "davide.damico@contactlab.com" In-Reply-To: <514F099D.9040005@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Reply-To: Paul Pathiakis List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:43:55 -0000 I haven't worked with CentOS since 6.0.=A0 I work on many other variants at= this time.=A0 I'm more than happy to take a look after I get my company of= f the ground....=A0 (A couple more months or land my next contracting gig)= =0A=0A=0AAnyhow,=A0 unlike with jails, it seems no matter what type of VM I= use, there's always 'overhead' in using virtual machine software.=A0 Perfo= rmance is 99.99% there with a 'real' installation.=A0 Whether it's VMware, = VirtualBox, or Zen, there's the issues of things that have always seemed to= cause a minor 'hurt'.=A0 It's also annoying when I have to dictate how muc= h memory, how many cores, disk space and everything else with regards to ea= ch virtual machine.=A0 Running the virtual software takes resources, from t= he OS, and each VM under control has to be 'given' bounds as to how many re= sources it can use. (I'm told that an ESX server is better at this, however= , that server must have a core OS that uses resources as well.)=0A=0A=0ASo,= lately, I started working with jails....=A0 for everything.=A0 There seems= to be no measurable issues with their use.=A0 Does anyone have any compari= son on jails versus various VM software?=A0 I'm not just talking the VM sof= tware running an OS in real-time and no negligible loss of performance.=A0 = I'm talking about the what's being taken from the core machine running the = software.=A0 That's overhead.=A0 The software consumes resources (memory, c= pu cycles, etc) and creates a certain amount of overhead for each VM create= d.=0A=0A=0AJails seem to be highly maintainable, easy to use, the resource = management of CPU, memory and other types are handled by the OS and not an = additional layer of software running on the host that becomes responsible f= or all this juggling.=A0 So, from my perspective, it seems jails remove a l= ayer of indirection over VM software.=A0 (Of course, arguably, jails are li= ghtweight VMs.)=A0 I'm just starting to become knowledgeable and a 'fan' of= jails.=0A=0AI'm also a little 'aged' and I never understood the need for V= M software as UNIX has always been capable of juggling (time slicing) task = courtesy of the job scheduler and the like.=A0 I can see that a mainframe, = mini, and Windows OS that were not designed to be capable of time sharing w= ould need them, but not UNIX.=0A=0AIf I wanted a 'rough' analogy, I can equ= ate VM software is to jails as UFS is to a ZFS pool.=A0 I think of it this = way:=A0 with VM software I have to understand the resources I will need and= I will create boundaries according to a 'best guess' scenario with jails I= create the environment and all the jails get access to all the available r= esources to the machine and allow a robust UNIX-like (I really hate writing= that given FBSD's roots :-) ) to handle something it's always been capable= of handling from it's design.=A0 This is akin to having to setup UFS versu= s ZFS.=A0 UFS you have to have an idea of how big the partitions are and ch= oose bounds (and it's "not fun" when you have to re-partition), however, wi= th ZFS every partition grows within the bounds of the pool until it is exha= usted, at that point, add storage to the pool.=A0 (With a jail, at that poi= nt, if it's anything but CPU cores, just add resources to the machine - if = it is CPU, it's time for a new CPU or maybe a second machine.)=A0 =0A=0A=0AI hate to say this but I'm fin= ding jails 'highly superior' to VM software and now that I hear that we can= run Linux in a jail, I'd be very curious to do that, too.=A0 =0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOne last thing, I see VMs almost as a 'development tool' that peopl= e just recklessly took to the next level.=A0 It's a lot of fun to create VM= s on a desktop machine that you are doing development on to see what change= s occur before putting software into production, but, like most things of t= he last 25 years (high capacity disk drives, plummeting memory prices, and = the ongoing speed increases of CPUs), people have become lazy in doing thin= gs the right way.=A0 When things were tight, people thought at the 'assembl= er' level to program lean, mean and fast, C was a boon as it's kind of a le= vel 2.5 Von Neuman language, you can access low-level but it's structured l= ike a level 3 language.=A0 Now, people don't really think of machine resour= ces.=A0 They just hack together things and hope the compiler catches their = mistakes.=A0=A0=A0 *shrug*=0A=0A=0AP.=0A=0A=0APS - (I'd post my cred= entials, but, basically, I'm a Systems Architect that has a past with emplo= yment or consulting with many major corporations.=A0 My job is creating sys= tems of systems that are highly scalable and modular and can be nimble in m= oving from one tech to another.=A0 I've been exposed to almost every *NIX t= ype of OS, Windows and other OS variants....=A0 I'm still impressed with FB= SD as I'm a CS and I have watched it always try to be cutting edge and alwa= ys implement the correct technologies and refuses to compromise by releasin= g a.0 that 'kinda works'That's how I've lived my career.=A0 Kudos = to all the people working on it!)=0A=0APPS - I have to make my living using= all variants of *nix including Debian, CentOS, RH, SuSe, etc.=A0 Also, Ibe= lieve I was the first one to create a SAN in 1993 while at EMC.=A0 I've wor= ked with many Linux variants.=A0 However, when I look at who is really usin= g BSD.... Cisco, Juniper, NetApp, and many major manufacturers base their *= NIX products on it and kind of give away Linux for free but they are really= happy to get consulting hours at $200-$400/hr to work it....=A0 So, I'm no= t a 'fan boy' , I'm somebody who respects the mindset of the 'best tech to = solve the problem'.=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Bi= ll Totman =0ATo: davide.damico@contactlab.com =0ACc:= freebsd-performance@freebsd.org =0ASent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:11 AM= =0ASubject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3=0A =0AOn 3/23/13 3:44 AM, Davide = D'Amico wrote:=0A> Il 23.03.2013 01:34 Paul Pathiakis ha scritto:=0A>> Hi,= =0A>> =0A>> There are several things about this that are highly suspect.=0A= >> =0A>> First, wipe out the hardware RAID. The processor doing RAID=0A>> c= omputation is, probably, MUCH slower than a core on the CPU. Even if=0A>> i= t's RAID-1 (Simple Mirror) this RAID card is performing tasks that is=0A>> = does not need to do including replicating writes to two targets from=0A>> t= he controller or checking it's cache, battery, etc. If it's possible=0A>> t= o disable the onboard cache, do it.=0A> =0A> Hi Paul,=0A> thanks for your s= uggestions (some of them I've applied before starting any consideration, li= ke disabling all on-disk caches or controller buffers) I'll try next monday= .=0A> =0A> Anyway, the fact is that using the same hardware configuration (= raid1+raid10) I saw that a centos 6.x outperformed freebsd 9.1.=0A> Another= test I made yesterday was: on the same hardware I installed vmware esx 5.x= and created a vm with centos inside it. The result was really impressive: = the centos vm outperformed the 'real' freebsd 9.1 too and checking vmware p= erformances graphs I didn't see any huge need for a massive throughput (I s= aw values from KBps to 10MBps), instead I saw a big use of CPU (using OLTP = tests with a concurrency of 32 threads it's performaces began to slow down)= .=0A> =0ASo, what happened when you installed FreeBSD 9.1 in the VM? How di= d the 'fake' FreeBSD 9.1 compare 1) to the 'real', and 2) to either of the = CentOS installations?=0A=0A-bt=0A> I don't know is using some magic value f= or HZ or setting some trick with scheduler, I could gain something: I hope = so, because I don't want to "pinguinate" my farm :)=0A> =0A> Thanks,=0A> d.= =0A> =0A> _______________________________________________=0A> freebsd-perfo= rmance@freebsd.org mailing list=0A> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listin= fo/freebsd-performance=0A> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-perfor= mance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A=0A_______________________________________= ________=0Afreebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list=0Ahttp://lists.free= bsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance=0ATo unsubscribe, send any mai= l to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 16:01:06 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 B959263B for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:01:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1921DF for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:01:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hn17so3193223wib.6 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:01:05 -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=5nZ8bn0UzjEUPZt1R5v/7a7mnUO9IeDU7UsyRFs9Q3U=; b=sd1th+4cmbjP8mmdNOX+LHG9jmMaL0f/G1ZnZ1PmRfv0VudDsaGwDbxrZf+vw5AfZ5 kMVCaLiQ6WWOUujai0eJsW4T512gbe9VJvTZ5XzMLwAWTA/ewRDfoM4Pur7FXp/TzHR6 ggTxJL/yAwd1cPl218L3z8qxhg1AZ9Fb455ewESotRGpwCM//X1EUPxGZWGNfgGJeb6c 1ByOUxhsdki/n+xCwkp0PKtiYo7pgjzyb75UdAjOIX5uxtoDPrO9tijDkkrXKmcbm4f2 mSmf5dNuRuhMaNtGhtE94RDZeF6J72wl/6zZpeLH3/Q7S2jBb1shootzE/jsWWdFkVZy 5AKw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.109.82 with SMTP id hq18mr12856083wib.0.1364140865477; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.140.20 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:01:05 -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 16:01:06 -0000 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 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 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" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 18:46:00 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 51F64B8F; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:46:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B73E69; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:45:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id s43so250141wey.7 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:45:59 -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=sbduJW9wfmaPhLzH1BHAFJ35gW9HK85f38Pkxh/hggc=; b=IjT56W3zcaRDlNH3D0cGa6mHlS9lHwBdL3j70aGfPnEg7ol7Ql8L34yiOyPt2lLljy E7z0huS0kIYNAugKUegw/tqDiOTWX7pqSa3VlloY2UVhwBEcOAP8VSNl3UGxeQM4ckkB fOTCw/adUHOS296d6hDshzTG3111dpz3dSNN8ANv4U12gMRoK3sUHdDzDpV9ooUKwOf8 qhoDD5WQhD5cTFbxTqBWUUnRBVXVVIqbHk3P0rvsjcxg4M/eZLL67JO+tzSZg8p65QI6 bI0BLvAU7fwVU9OlPJ66SO+5oZqiqgqXymcP96jCnb+0dOAbbemmdaCrzGtZx112w8gE FcHQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.109.82 with SMTP id hq18mr13361314wib.0.1364150758963; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.140.20 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:45:58 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adam Vande More To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 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 18:46:00 -0000 jemalloc also has concurrency issues when threads > areas: http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > 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 < > daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz>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" > -- Adam Vande More From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 18:48:23 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 BBCD0DB1 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:48:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596D5E91 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id dq12so623739wgb.12 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:48:22 -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=O8AeZemFwABAof4Vw+BhaLfgBSsNzW93seUlNq6f5Wk=; b=FamCGO94Yq303UgIGMdjfVwelmPO84IaMf+6werSRNZ2W5TaK9RWzd7E2OAz7ZegKH zYNrcb2Xzk1eW8dvxjKZwto8X61JR6Y/NGPjA1J5dX3dXAT252zeKSt767Bk/2J5Xsf1 DmqYcLKCWj+MmOICCa4YKbQQvUS/JBXelqGSiKmKkElZhxvRK9ce2Fcb5SQY6CiTgMRV STUuaSyxI7PsOpAsdNIw1NNbvKKYnbuuBUytO7cFdp2bfpeVGzswgkX+ASt+vb2uss2A jEMyD0d7fRwIr3zKfb9j5cIdTTeCy6TdbpbLMT2CjBDdomvCHeBkC2qbsdNbwmuXW4v6 97Hw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.11.164 with SMTP id ej4mr13304114wid.29.1364150902104; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:48:21 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: H27sqaJMBr1EPR2ZGvVSv56J6fI 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 18:48:23 -0000 On 24 March 2013 11:45, Adam Vande More wrote: > jemalloc also has concurrency issues when threads > areas: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf Right. I still think it's worth trying the mysql test in a debian/kfreebsd install in a jail on the same machine you run freebsd+mysql tests on. That'll tell us how much of it is to do with the kernel and how much of it is to do with userland. Adrian From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 19:58:50 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 D5B43109 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:58:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz) Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (mail.neosystem.cz [94.23.169.88]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05331D0 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:58:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (unknown [127.0.10.15]) by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65619476D; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:58:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.neosystem.cz Received: from leon.sn.neosystem.cz (unknown [IPv6:2001:41d0:2:5ab8::60:14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3578F4767; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:58:45 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:55:45 +0100 From: Daniel Bilik To: Adam Vande More Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-Id: <20130324205545.b357801d4b13fdb8024a9423@neosystem.cz> In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Organization: neosystem.cz X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.12; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:45:13 +0000 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 19:58:50 -0000 On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:01:05 -0500 Adam Vande More wrote: > These are interesting results. Did you try tuning any of the jemalloc > options in /etc/malloc.conf? No tuning, jemalloc was tested "out of the box" just for curiosity. > I think increasing the number of arenas may help the contention, eg "ln > -s 3N /etc/malloc.conf" Luckily the test system is still running, so I could just apply suggested tuning, restart mysqld with jemalloc and launch benchmark sets. Results for read-only transactions are practically identical to previous ones. Read-write transactions test is still running but from numbers for 1 to 16 threads I can tell there is some (very) small improvement and the results are more stable. -- Daniel Bilik neosystem.cz From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 25 14:00:24 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 C071D860 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:00:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540D4FF0 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:00:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1364220016; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=2M2BKrk/dsE0PDGpG7Ew8WsXVs2caO4VugbVqRizXPE=; b=c+YFDFtfEmROWF6wAOu0TApImUPoZXFRKZDQrBDpF4c7G8uUKnOqc954RQWxE+jG WnCwRJA1xdXJ8I3IZUz8J/yAU1/IOikxrUwWcxKKqO/JLnSXcTlYP3ToCMOVf0V4 XO8GDWDFW7AnNCYpeX1HfutzERuGzcJmkAV7gRUwK5w=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:49549] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id 54/38-24145-07850515; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:00:16 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UK7we-000GM2-4h for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:00:16 +0100 Received: (qmail 62868 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2013 14:00:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO davepro.local) (127.0.0.1) by mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan with SMTP; 25 Mar 2013 14:00:16 -0000 Message-ID: <5150586E.5040408@contactlab.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:00:14 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:00:24 -0000 Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5 MySQL Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query using Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using 2 threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads. CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent: 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895 VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457 VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*): 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058 VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**): 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to the previous one) FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD: 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062 FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD: 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672 Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not only in standard oltp tests. I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers. Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests. d. (*) Using: - sysctl.conf: - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; - loader.conf: - kern.hz=100; (**) Using: - sysctl.conf: - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; - loader.conf: - kern.hz=100; - malloc.conf -> 3N From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 25 14:46:01 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 1A77BF6A for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:46:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A146D3F8 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:46:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1364222759; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=TedF7Lv3mXMB5+OUXndoIHCSy/Cw448nrp77Y+4fi8U=; b=s+BD79xsIk6bywY6yXnFzocWZGocMCPSvFeArI9yPWRzvtOxYHMLBzHrUBdHpURh gso/y7WIshiUl6jO2xwqHN2mZ5dhCbOATeSbXsXWDjkMGkhTyGIuxb3LQ2m49V9l Al8l42sJTypP9/K5n+YKcxnOd81CFDVwViAkaiXvlO0=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:39017] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id 51/7E-24145-72360515; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:45:59 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UK8et-000Jet-CD for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:45:59 +0100 Received: (qmail 75569 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2013 14:45:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO davepro.local) (127.0.0.1) by mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan with SMTP; 25 Mar 2013 14:45:59 -0000 Message-ID: <51506326.9020109@contactlab.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:45:58 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] References: <5150586E.5040408@contactlab.com> In-Reply-To: <5150586E.5040408@contactlab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:46:01 -0000 Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto: > Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5 MySQL > Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query using > Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second > and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using 2 > threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads. > > CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent: > 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895 > > VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: > 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457 > > VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*): > 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058 > > VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**): > 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to the > previous one) > > FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD: > 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062 > > FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD: > 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672 > > Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not > only in standard oltp tests. > I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers. > > Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests. > > d. > > > (*) > Using: > - sysctl.conf: > - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; > - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; > - loader.conf: > - kern.hz=100; > > (**) > Using: > - sysctl.conf: > - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; > - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; > - loader.conf: > - kern.hz=100; > - malloc.conf -> 3N Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related to oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have: VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218 CentOS 6: 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282 FreeBSD 9.1: 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787 I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is, I hope so. I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need. Thanks, d. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 25 17:11:18 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 6F067BB5 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:11:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFA32E5 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 12so4207280wgh.1 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:17 -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=66RkJjd1qTAjxYuvyoGX/ozT8HSMuchAUVtL0km9vIY=; b=VZ/tCPhCDCtg4SI3nUFauGJTzzsrXQh40zKlbSkRQ8BtVHMLQtnM8kvo3Jv0MzP3s/ kzPtoca8mJRKseV3RbfNuulXSZMb33xUxDOBpXX3gv0zw4nhMb9PvwfxoIEi3tLa2u2X pwshtLxr1gxdaXlOSSffEDyqeG2Lw99x+LGWpAdcareglWRgI9eyGIWDx+qfGbXgEq/k S/83mFOoqYAZ4wKmVlFeK7XU9eZUg+H23eYuwn8e/cdwyayr5QY5QW11Mit9FHhLJYQ/ j/oMnK+tpdzPbp8uAlnGG7SVSyra8gp76rlyv9+xJXyF0owFdKeVaJ5y04Lt0AwZZ0Of dlvQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.11.164 with SMTP id ej4mr19025668wid.29.1364231477064; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51506326.9020109@contactlab.com> References: <5150586E.5040408@contactlab.com> <51506326.9020109@contactlab.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: E5hEMfeHkZxd3se_vILeus_5FZY Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] From: Adrian Chadd To: "Davide D'Amico" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:11:18 -0000 Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see whether it's the kernel or userland? Thanks, Adrian On 25 March 2013 07:45, Davide D'Amico wrote: > Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto: > >> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5 MySQL >> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query using >> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second >> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using 2 >> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads. >> >> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent: >> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895 >> >> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: >> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457 >> >> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*): >> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058 >> >> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**): >> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to the >> previous one) >> >> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD: >> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062 >> >> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD: >> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672 >> >> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not >> only in standard oltp tests. >> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers. >> >> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests. >> >> d. >> >> >> (*) >> Using: >> - sysctl.conf: >> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; >> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; >> - loader.conf: >> - kern.hz=100; >> >> (**) >> Using: >> - sysctl.conf: >> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; >> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; >> - loader.conf: >> - kern.hz=100; >> - malloc.conf -> 3N > > > Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related to > oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have: > > VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: > 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218 > > CentOS 6: > 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282 > > FreeBSD 9.1: > 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787 > > I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is, I hope > so. > > I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need. > > Thanks, > d. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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" From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 25 17:20:30 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 3394FECA for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:20:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86E5388 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:20:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1364232027; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=yi/86jnqpMwVo0+LBTfffnYS8HyD1d5zDNSUpoGhu+w=; b=FT2IKcAJlVVVtXhBMZbYoOKAKP5zN8wDnv6Fv8jna0pSowDtWhQvZXPNLGOzu6uD ucE5s91GbaoRTKzOYsYE6ls6hveRzDIUfhRQVh90bXwkcZfJboWiqqJ+MAPWzCJl 9eyHOJnAbQJrs43qKXmKAiBeDljWLfs3uuh7dGYYBCI=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:48196] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id DA/A7-24145-B5780515; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:20:27 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UKB4N-0005k4-GT for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:20:27 +0100 Received: (qmail 22072 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2013 17:20:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO davepro.local) (127.0.0.1) by mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan with SMTP; 25 Mar 2013 17:20:27 -0000 Message-ID: <5150875A.1000707@contactlab.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:20:26 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] References: <5150586E.5040408@contactlab.com> <51506326.9020109@contactlab.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:20:30 -0000 Il 25/03/13 18:11, Adrian Chadd ha scritto: > Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see > whether it's the kernel or userland? Sure, do you have a link on how to install gnu/linux on a fbsd jail? Is ok if I use the VM I created in vmware (so it will be VMWARE -> FreeBSD -> Linux Jail)? d.