On 09/24/13 21:24, compdoc wrote:
>> The question that has to be asked, though, is "under what test
> conditions".
>
> Well, I have to assume the tests mean on the same hardware. Which implies
> changes in code.
The problem is that doesn't mean a lot of the test is on hardware on
which the older version has already fallen on its face because it scan't
scale to that many cores.
>> MySQL 5.6 is actually slower, core for core and RAM for RAM, than 5.1 on
> older hardware with the same data.
>
> I appreciate legacy hardware, but I'm a small business with newer x86_64
> hardware as are all of my customers who use mysql, so not really a concern.
Oh, sure, and we try to keep all of our customers as up to date as we
can. My point is simply that sometimes I think Oracle's glowing
announcements of the performance gains in the latest version seem
improbable without a much better stipulation of what is being compared
to what.
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
ala...@caerllewys.net ala...@metrocast.net p...@co.ordinate.org
Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, SQL wrangler, Free Stater
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
