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"