Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:36:48 +0100 From: Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz> To: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-ID: <20130324103648.5df136009292994a41f39104@neosystem.cz> In-Reply-To: <f6c080db-4f32-4d4f-966a-b0af4a8c9b99@email.android.com> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <CAF3xD3nDDUYB94TS9AUUQ=CPztB1S8mU4fRwNB5GupmK8MgwXg@mail.gmail.com> <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz> <f6c080db-4f32-4d4f-966a-b0af4a8c9b99@email.android.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:11:53 +0100 Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130324103648.5df136009292994a41f39104>