From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 03:24:13 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4130116A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:24:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zircon.seattle.wa.us (dsl231-043-165.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.231.43.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C463443D41 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:24:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us) Received: (qmail 22742 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 03:26:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost.zircon.seattle.wa.us) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Feb 2005 03:26:16 -0000 From: Joe Kelsey To: Matt Olander In-Reply-To: <20050209164359.J31921@knight.ixsystems.net> References: <20050209162202.I31921@knight.ixsystems.net> <20050210005856.GC818@thened.net> <20050209164359.J31921@knight.ixsystems.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:26:15 -0800 Message-Id: <1108005975.683.47.camel@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:24:13 -0000 On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 16:44 -0800, Matt Olander wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 07:58:56PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote: > > > Also, does anybody have any FreeBSD 5.3/MySQL benchmarks? I searched > > > the mailing lists but didn't turn up anything. > > > > There was an article posted to Newsforge today about benchmarking > > MySQL on different operating systems. > > oh! thanks...but according to this article, Linux outperformed FreeBSD > in every metric shown :-( > > is that accurate? LinuxThreads is the WORST implementation of threading that anyone can imagine. Do not ever use Linux or the horrid LinuxThreads for anything that you want to save. Any so-called "benchmark" comparing Linux to anything else (especially windoze) has been polluted by the tradition in the linux/windoze world of running their disks in the completely unsafe "asynchronous" mode so popular with the ATA disk drive manufacturers. This method means that you never actually know whether or not the drive ever writes your data on the disk. It could just sit in the cache waiting for a power failure so that you lose everything. This "async" mode means that the benchmarks "look" fast but are completely unsafe. > > > The customer is looking for some kind of validation that he'll be > > > safe running his database on FreeBSD. > > > > I don't usually look at benchmarks when wondering if my databases are > > 'safe'. > > Perhaps you misunderstood or I fired that email off to quickly. In > addition to benchmarks, he's also looking for anything to show that > he won't be a pioneer in using large MySQL databases on FreeBSD. > > In other words, I'd love to point this customer to FreeBSD if it makes > sense for them. any help appreciated! Many companies have used FreeBSD and MySQL for years and years. There is no reason to not jump to FreeBSD and start using MySQL. At my last job, we ran very large MySQL databases on FreeBSD. For speed we used 15,000 RPM SCSI-3 disk drives. This gives you all the speed you need with the guaranteed safety of FreeBSD. Of course, SCSI-3 15,000 RPM drives are more expensive than those wimpy ATA drives. Go to FreeBSD. Leave that unsafe Linux crap in the dust. /Joe