Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:01:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MySQL benchmarks Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050209235923.26319d-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <420AA08C.8090809@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Scott Long wrote: > > The scalability results look promising. Also, has anyone seen what > > effect WITH_PROC_SCOPE_PTH has on performance? > > It's a mixed bag that has been in significant flux over the past 8 > months due to threading and scheduling infrastructure sometimes fixing > bugs and sometimes introducing new bugs. On the mysql SuperSmack test, > the best results I found on a dual 3GHz Xeon were with system scope > threads under libpthread. libthr was a close second (though all threads > there are process scope by definition) and process scope libpthread was > almost as bad as libc_r. However, that was back in August, and I think > that much has changed since then. Other, non-mysql tests that I've run > recently have shown that process scope libpthread is now the overall > winner. It would be nice to come up with a new matrix of results based > on scheduler, preemption, thread library, and thread attributes. Now if > only I had the 2 days free to do that... David Xu's recent work on threading also looks very promising, and in his benchmarks seemed to substantially outperform MySQL running linuxthreads, libkse, libthr, and libc_r on FreeBSD. I recently set him up with a dual Xeon box to use in the netperf cluster as he was previously benchmarking only on PIII hardware. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050209235923.26319d-100000>