From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 16 19:03:06 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881F816A420 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C4313C4A3; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:03:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <47150AE9.9070400@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:03:05 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Schuller , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20071016110642.GB54457@hyperion.scode.org> <20071016171721.GB6566@voi.aagh.net> In-Reply-To: <20071016171721.GB6566@voi.aagh.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Status of MySQL on 7 w/o patches applied X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:03:06 -0000 Thomas Hurst wrote: > * Peter Schuller (peter.schuller@infidyne.com) wrote: > >> My question is - what is the expected status of MySQL performance in >> FreeBSD 7 (without external patches) at this time? > > Most if not all of the relevent patches were applied months ago. We ran > MySQL in production for some time using both patched and later unpatched > 7-CURRENT with ULE for a while, and normal performance was easily > comparible with Linux and Solaris. > > We did see poor behavior with MySQL 5.1 and replication; the slave > thread needed periodic restarts because it would use progressively more > CPU and eventually fall behind, spending a long time in 'init' on every > query, which we didn't see in other OS's. Whether this was FreeBSD's or > MySQL's fault I don't know, but one certainly didn't like the other. When I tried mysql 5.1 on my usual benchmarks a few months ago, performance was terrible compared to 5.0. I wondered if they had made some ill-conceived architectural changes that increased contention even more than within 5.0. I didn't investigate it though. Kris