Revenue Source

Welcome to the Revenue Source affiliate marketing forums.

You are viewing our internet marketing and SEO forums as a guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions.  By joining our free community, you will have access to post affiliate marketing topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), exchange SEO strategies, and access many other special features.  Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Go Back   Revenue Source > Site Design & Development > Databases
Reload this Page InnoDB benchmarks
Tags: ,

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
Affiliate Blogs is Offline
Revenue Source Veteran
Affiliate Blogs has a brilliant future here!
 
Affiliate Blogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,731
Jack of All Trades
CyberSpace United States
   
InnoDB benchmarks - 01-03-2007

There was several changes in InnoDB to fix scalabilty problems, so I ran benchmark to check
new results and also compare overall performance of InnoDB in 5.0 and 5.1 before and after fixes.
Problems in InnoDB that were fixed:
  • Thread trashing issues with count of theads 100+. In this case
    performance of InnoDB degraded dramatically. The problem was in the mutex impelementation
    and was fixed in 5.1.12 (more info about InnoDB mutexes)
  • Scalabilty issue, the well know bug 15815, that was fixed in 5.0.30 and 5.1.14.
So I took for tests:
  • 5.0.27, the release with both problems
  • 5.0.32-bk (snapshot from 26 Dec 2006) - with 15815 bug fix
  • 5.1.12 with fix of thread trashing
  • 5.1.14 with all fixes
  • 5.0.30 just for comparison.
  • 4.1.22 old release, just for comparison of overall performance
All releases were compiled from sources with options:
PLAIN TEXT
CODE:
  1. [FONT='Courier New', Courier, monospace]./configure --prefix=/usr/local/mysqltest/mysql- --with-innodb [/font]



and next startup options were used:
PLAIN TEXT
CODE:
  1. [FONT='Courier New', Courier, monospace]libexec/mysqld --no-defaults --user=root --innodb-buffer-pool-size=1500M --innodb-log-file-size=100M --innodb-thread-concurrency=8 --max-connections=1500 --table-cache=512 [/font]



Description of benchmark
Specially for our needs I developed benchmark suite which support wide range of tables and queries.
The schema and used queries is avaiable here:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d7fzh8b_7dwd8m7
or on our page
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/...testsuite.html
In short I used several SELECT queries which perform point and range access to table by PrimaryKey and usual key and one query for full table scan.
Range queries is especially interesting for bug 15815 as the same such queries were affected on multi-CPU systems.
Used hardware:
CentOS release 4.4 (Final)
2 ? Dual Core Intel XEON 5130
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5130 @ 2.00GHz
stepping : 6
cpu MHz : 1995.004
cache size : 4096 KB
16GB of RAM
Disks do no matter, as I ran clear CPU-bound benchmarks.
The raw results of benchmarks are available here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...b6Z8eWjePZU-JQ
or on our page
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/...odb_scale.html
(Note: This benchmark is synthetic micro benchmarks focusing on particular simple data access patterns. Results for your workload are likely to be different.)
Couple of my comments:
  • The test on our hardware did not show the scalability problem, but the main goal was the comparison of
    overall performance of InnoDB before fix (in 5.0.27) and after fix (5.0.30/5.1.14 and later)
  • The fix of 15815 shows good results:
    in 5.0.32 (comparing to 5.0.27) the improvement for READ_PK_RANGE is 5-16%.
    most interesting is improvement by 30-39% in READ_KEY_RANGE queries
    and by 10-23% for full table scan queries.
    I unambiguously recommend to switch to 5.0.30 - 5.0.32 release when it is available.
  • You can see general performance degradation comparing 5.1.14 with 5.0.32
    For example slow down by 12% in READ_PK_POINT with 1 thread.
    And by 11-15% in READ_KEY_RANGE queries.
    There is nothing extraordinary, this is a paid for new features. </p>

InnoDB benchmarks - Read More...
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads for: InnoDB benchmarks
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paul Jones' Blog: New Year's Benchmarks Affiliate Blogs Programming Help 0 01-02-2007 01:14 PM
Edin Kadribasic's Blog: Benchmarks Affiliate Blogs Programming Help 0 12-19-2006 10:07 PM
COUNT(*) for Innodb Tables Affiliate Blogs Databases 0 12-01-2006 06:04 PM
Interesting MySQL and PostgreSQL Benchmarks Affiliate Blogs Databases 0 11-30-2006 10:44 PM
Bug fix of InnoDB scalability problem Affiliate Blogs Databases 0 11-14-2006 10:03 PM



© 2004-6 RevenueSource.com.  All rights reserved.  Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.
This website and its logos/design are property of RevenueSource.com.  All rights reserved. vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34