Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:08:16 +0000 From: Thomas Hurst <tom@hur.st> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loaded MySQL 4.0.18 w/ KSE running nicely Message-ID: <20040322170816.GA56747@voi.aagh.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0403212329520.17893-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20040322045339.GA43881@voi.aagh.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0403212329520.17893-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Julian Elischer (julian@elischer.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Thomas Hurst wrote:
>
> > Just thought I'd make a little note to let people know that we're
> > successfully running MySQL 4.0.18 on 5.2.1-RELEASE-p3 dated Mar 18 using
> > libkse, after having raised thread limits to 500 per proc/150 per group:
[..]
Spoke too soon; few hours ago we got:
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
cpuid = 0; apic id = 01
fault virtual address = 0xea3db028
fault code = supervisor read, page not present
instruction pointer = 0x8:0xc061e937
stack pointer = 0x10:0xea3f6d74
frame pointer = 0x10:0xbf93499c
code segment = base 0x0, limit 0xfffff, type 0x1b
= DPL 0, pres 1, def32 1, gran 1
processor eflags = resume, IOPL = 0
current process = 93103 (mysqld)
We are not amused, especially since the kernel seemed to ignore our
PANIC_REBOOT_WAIT_TIME=5, and now we have MySQL churning through 65
million records, which looks like it's going to take hours.
This seems to be a result of a load spike caused by a cronjob. We have
DSIZ/SSIZ both set to 1GB; I'm wondering if a 1GB stack is desirable,
given NOTES only has it set to 128M while the DSIZ example is at 1GB...
and I *really* hope it's not a hardware issue. Given it's got more fans
than the latest boy band and has good quality ECC memory in it, it
shouldn't be...
> it's a pitty we can't see -current
>
> limits are increased to 500 and 1500 and code improved in several
> places.
Hey, we tried :)
> it would also be interesting to see how it differs with the package
> compiled to use process scope threads intead of system scope
> threads. Dan had instructions to do that somewhere I think.
Will look into this. Further pointers gratefully received :)
> is 142 Queries per second ok or slow? what were you getting before?
About the same. If it were slower than before I wouldn't have said it
was successful. And given the latest development, maybe it's not :/
--
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - freaky@aagh.net - http://www.aagh.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040322170816.GA56747>