Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 14:02:00 +0300 From: Sven Petai <hadara@bsd.ee> To: David Xu <yfxu@corp.netease.com> Cc: Michael Vince <mv@roq.com>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Subject: Re: mysql performance on 4 * dualcore opteron Message-ID: <200604081402.00982.hadara@bsd.ee> In-Reply-To: <200604081832.46971.yfxu@corp.netease.com> References: <200604041942.18767.hadara@bsd.ee> <44378600.7010004@roq.com> <200604081832.46971.yfxu@corp.netease.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 08 April 2006 13:32, David Xu wrote: > On Saturday 08 April 2006 17:44, Michael Vince wrote: > > I have also tried putting my Perl under libthr for a single thread log > > analyzer and to my surprise it even could process logs faster. > > I don't know why, but I only know I did some micro optimizations in libthr, > and the library is small and may be fully cached in L1 cache on athlon > xp/64 CPU, don't take it seriously. ;-) > > > libthr is also really useful for actually paying attention to tops 'thr' > > column since it does show actual true thread number activity, under > > pthread it shows a couple and under libc_r I could have 1000 threads > > going but top just shows 1. Which makes me wonder if anyone has seen any realistic workload type under which kse library would outperform libthr ? My experiences have always been pretty much the same as yours - everything seems to be faster with libthr and in the case of mysql, even more stable. So shouldn't libthr be made the default one instead of libkse ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200604081402.00982.hadara>