Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 23:52:03 +0200 From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> To: <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> Subject: End of test sessions [Was Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 9] Message-ID: <afa321dd4ef9f5cfc1307202f9d57531@sys.tomatointeractive.it> In-Reply-To: <mailman.49.1364299201.23278.freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> References: <mailman.49.1364299201.23278.freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Il 26.03.2013 13:00 freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org ha scritto: > Send freebsd-performance mailing list submissions to > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > freebsd-performance-owner@freebsd.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of freebsd-performance digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico) > 2. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico) > 3. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Adrian Chadd) > 4. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:00:14 +0100 > From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> > To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] > Message-ID: <5150586E.5040408@contactlab.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5 > MySQL > Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query using > Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second > and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using > 2 > threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads. > > CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent: > 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895 > > VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: > 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457 > > VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*): > 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058 > > VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**): > 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to > the > previous one) > > FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD: > 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062 > > FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD: > 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672 > > Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not > only in standard oltp tests. > I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers. > > Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests. > > d. > > > (*) > Using: > - sysctl.conf: > - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; > - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; > - loader.conf: > - kern.hz=100; > > (**) > Using: > - sysctl.conf: > - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; > - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; > - loader.conf: > - kern.hz=100; > - malloc.conf -> 3N > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:45:58 +0100 > From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> > To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] > Message-ID: <51506326.9020109@contactlab.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto: >> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5 >> MySQL >> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query >> using >> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second >> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using >> 2 >> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads. >> >> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent: >> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895 >> >> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: >> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457 >> >> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*): >> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058 >> >> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**): >> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to >> the >> previous one) >> >> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD: >> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062 >> >> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD: >> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672 >> >> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not >> only in standard oltp tests. >> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers. >> >> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests. >> >> d. >> >> >> (*) >> Using: >> - sysctl.conf: >> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; >> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; >> - loader.conf: >> - kern.hz=100; >> >> (**) >> Using: >> - sysctl.conf: >> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; >> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; >> - loader.conf: >> - kern.hz=100; >> - malloc.conf -> 3N > > Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related to > oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have: > > VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: > 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218 > > CentOS 6: > 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282 > > FreeBSD 9.1: > 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787 > > I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is, I > hope so. > > I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need. > > Thanks, > d. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:16 -0700 > From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> > To: "Davide D'Amico" <davide.damico@contactlab.com> > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] > Message-ID: > <CAJ-Vmo=ne+ck17Dwy18AuLLwta690owSK4_iRoUdAcfvRHv-Fg@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see > whether it's the kernel or userland? > > Thanks, > > > > > Adrian > > > On 25 March 2013 07:45, Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> > wrote: >> Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto: >> >>> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5 >>> MySQL >>> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query >>> using >>> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per >>> second >>> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one >>> using 2 >>> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads. >>> >>> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent: >>> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895 >>> >>> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: >>> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457 >>> >>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*): >>> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058 >>> >>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**): >>> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to >>> the >>> previous one) >>> >>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD: >>> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062 >>> >>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD: >>> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672 >>> >>> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and >>> not >>> only in standard oltp tests. >>> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers. >>> >>> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests. >>> >>> d. >>> >>> >>> (*) >>> Using: >>> - sysctl.conf: >>> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; >>> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; >>> - loader.conf: >>> - kern.hz=100; >>> >>> (**) >>> Using: >>> - sysctl.conf: >>> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1; >>> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast; >>> - loader.conf: >>> - kern.hz=100; >>> - malloc.conf -> 3N >> >> >> Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related >> to >> oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have: >> >> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1: >> 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218 >> >> CentOS 6: >> 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282 >> >> FreeBSD 9.1: >> 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787 >> >> I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is, >> I hope >> so. >> >> I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need. >> >> Thanks, >> d. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:20:26 +0100 > From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> > To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance > Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] > Message-ID: <5150875A.1000707@contactlab.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Il 25/03/13 18:11, Adrian Chadd ha scritto: >> Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see >> whether it's the kernel or userland? > > Sure, do you have a link on how to install gnu/linux on a fbsd jail? > > Is ok if I use the VM I created in vmware (so it will be VMWARE -> > FreeBSD -> Linux Jail)? > Hi, thanks for your support and ideas but I have to stop my test sessions because I need to use my pair of servers in production (and very quickly, too), so at this moment they'll remain fbsd 9.1 :) Thank you again, d.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?afa321dd4ef9f5cfc1307202f9d57531>