From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 18:36:22 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 69B4516A41C for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:36:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom.hurst@clara.net) Received: from spork.qfe3.net (spork.qfe3.net [212.13.207.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D5343D1F for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:36:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom.hurst@clara.net) Received: from [81.104.55.176] (helo=voi.aagh.net) by spork.qfe3.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DjLhU-0001wn-NI; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:36:20 +0100 Received: from freaky by voi.aagh.net with local (Exim 4.51 (FreeBSD)) id 1DjLhU-0004HG-Dp; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:36:20 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:36:20 +0100 From: Thomas Hurst To: David Sze Message-ID: <20050617183620.GB8376@voi.aagh.net> Mail-Followup-To: David Sze , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050617103807.058c6fa8@mail.distrust.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050617103807.058c6fa8@mail.distrust.net> Organization: Not much. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: Thomas Hurst X-RBL-Warning: 81.104.55.176 is in RBL blacklist at dnsbl.sorbs.net 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 List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:36:22 -0000 * David Sze (dsze@alumni.uwaterloo.ca) wrote: > super-smack select-key > 5.4-RELEASE ~20,000 queries/second > 6.0-CURRENT ~24,000 queries/second > CentOS w/async ~36,000 queries/second > CentOS w/sync ~26,000 queries/second Uh, this should be an entirely cached set of reads, why does mounting sync reduce performance this much? Does FreeBSD see a similar boost with async mounts? > super-smack update-select > 5.4-RELEASE ~4,000 queries/second > 6.0-CURRENT ~4,500 queries/second > CentOS w/async ~7,500 queries/second > CentOS w/sync ~750 queries/second Is this even relevent? Async is by far the most common setup on Linux, one which seems very stable and safe, especially on XFS/Reiser. Of course if FreeBSD can't match Linux/async performance, but still perform like this on a potentially safer sync mount, that's fine by me, but I'm having trouble buying that select-key performance. Even standalone multi-second and non-concurrent selects demonstrate this 30-40% lower performance than Linux on the same hardware. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst http://hur.st/