On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Axel Schwenke <a...@askmonty.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark, > > MARK CALLAGHAN wrote: > > > I didn't see a big change in going from toci=1 to toci=64. I don't > > dispute your results, but I am curious about why it made a difference > > for you but not for me. My sysbench test had: > > * 8 tables, partitioning not used > > * 8 copies of the sysbench process (1 per table), running a different > > host from mysqld > > * mysqld on host with 12 real CPUs and 24 vCPUs after HT was enabled > > * jemalloc > > * my table names were test.sbtestX (for X in 1 .. 8) > > I see. It seems you are using sysbench-0.4. I migrated to sysbench-0.5 (the > bzr trunk) a while ago because it has > > a) LUA support, this is great to implement custom workloads, and > b) the ability to report progress; this is useful to spot irregularities > like write stalls > I want to upgrade too but right now my scripts depend on 0.4 and I have my own 0.4 fork that has very good result reporting per-interval that makes it easy to find stalls. > > This is a pure read only benchmark, so fsync does not matter. Also I have > found that the InnoDB plugin is ~5-10% faster than XtraDB for sysbench. > Hence the last benchmarks are using plain InnoDB. > > I will revisit this for my read-only tests. I think I was looking at it for update-only tests. -- Mark Callaghan mdcal...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
