From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 20 11:48:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E6B16A41F for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:48:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from michael.schuh@gmail.com) Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.192]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F167243D4C for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:48:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from michael.schuh@gmail.com) Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id g2so31942nfe for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:48:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=U7ILXQT4gAC7VXhL2flRMkulKvBonY74mEUZQMCaXJgyQNOWUmKka/T9RNPt8AosKddfCfvJH1vuqQ7rs8KYOwRN9eJROauUeh36tSYoPUPqyaB6Xu7Vbvc4h3WiBGD4vnVUK914r2uvG2+JYBFuFtJg5lRt8ZGF/bcWFQDPckQ= Received: by 10.48.249.6 with SMTP id w6mr81006nfh; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.244.20 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1dbad315050620044862e8a7f6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:48:57 +0200 From: Michael Schuh To: Mark Kirkwood In-Reply-To: <42B6A528.2000204@paradise.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <1dbad315050620034565892ee@mail.gmail.com> <42B6A528.2000204@paradise.net.nz> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD MySQL still WAY slower than Linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Michael Schuh List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:48:59 -0000 Hello, yes random IO is more targetted to Databases. noop, i have the installation always made in the same way, and i have respe= cted the different diskperformace in different disk-parts..... this was the reason for #cd /;=20 at the beginning of my tests. In the first test i have me shooting self in my foot and i bites me in my ass :-))) =20 my suggestion going more in the direction...first solve all disk(ata) relat= ed performace issues, then test the mysql-performaces issues again to secure that you are not lying on an mixing of many problems.... :-) I think this was better then seek around corners that are not so relevant..= . or the result is not so dramatically.... greetings Michael 2005/6/20, Mark Kirkwood : > Michael Schuh wrote: > > > > > > My results was that RELENG_5 is half as RELENG_4 fast by disk-access > > (ata-related). > > > > I have seen that RELENG_5 with GENERIC Kernel and only modified option = HZ=3D2000. > > > > the spread begind with Gentoo (mentoided from me as the slowest, but > > errare humanum est) > > > > Gentoo : 100% time consumption > > RELENG_4: 67% time consumtion > > DrangonFly Rel1.2 69-72% time consumption (i think preemtion) > > RELENG_5 134% time consumtion > > > > these tests are made on physically the same Hardware (real, not equal > > system, same system, same disk, same RAM) with the command: > > > > # cd /; /usr/bin/time dd if=3D/dev/zero bs=3D1024 count=3D1024k of=3Dze= rofile; > > > > >=20 > You have shown that sequential IO is slower in RELENG_5 (I think others > have observed this also - check out Google)...However, random IO is > often more important for databases, and RELENG_5 can be faster than > RELENG_4 (try out iozone, it makes testing this easy). >=20 > Also note that if your operating systems are installed in different > parts of the same disk, then this will effect your results too - as some > parts are faster than others. >=20 > With respect to Mysql performance, I would suspect threading or > threading/kernel interaction as the culprit. (That reminds me, I don't > recall seeing the original poster re-doing the tests with 6.0-CURRENT - > that would be interesting). >=20 > cheers >=20 > Mark >=20 >