<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Maximal write througput in MySQL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/</link>
	<description>Percona&#039;s MySQL &#38; InnoDB performance and scalability blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:45:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gaea &#8211; Redes Sociales Verticales &#124; Comunidades Online &#124; Web 2.0 &#124; Agile Development &#124; E-Salud &#124; Software Libre &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Escalar las escrituras hasta 734 millones de registros por dÃ­a usando particionado de MySQL por dÃ­as</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-765451</link>
		<dc:creator>Gaea &#8211; Redes Sociales Verticales &#124; Comunidades Online &#124; Web 2.0 &#124; Agile Development &#124; E-Salud &#124; Software Libre &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Escalar las escrituras hasta 734 millones de registros por dÃ­a usando particionado de MySQL por dÃ­as</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 16:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-765451</guid>
		<description>[...] recomendamos asimismo echar una ojeada aÂ  Maximal write througput in MySQL, de los asistentes del Blog de Rendimiento de [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] recomendamos asimismo echar una ojeada aÂ  Maximal write througput in MySQL, de los asistentes del Blog de Rendimiento de [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Callaghan</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-737029</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Callaghan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-737029</guid>
		<description>I would also like to see results for Power CPUs, at least the ones that have high clock rates.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would also like to see results for Power CPUs, at least the ones that have high clock rates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Stone</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-737021</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Stone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:22:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-737021</guid>
		<description>I have been wondering about Power7 / IBM architecture and so-called &quot;high-end&quot; server testing for MySQL.

Obviously, the Power7 architecture is pound-for-pound more powerful than any Intel platform -- Sparc isn&#039;t even a consideration.

I&#039;d love to see the same tests run on the new 750 series Power7 CPU&#039;s and hardware from IBM.

My guess is that we&#039;d see another full CLASS of hardware / performance benchmarks unlike any yet seen....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been wondering about Power7 / IBM architecture and so-called &#8220;high-end&#8221; server testing for MySQL.</p>
<p>Obviously, the Power7 architecture is pound-for-pound more powerful than any Intel platform &#8212; Sparc isn&#8217;t even a consideration.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d love to see the same tests run on the new 750 series Power7 CPU&#8217;s and hardware from IBM.</p>
<p>My guess is that we&#8217;d see another full CLASS of hardware / performance benchmarks unlike any yet seen&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-732400</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-732400</guid>
		<description>Vadim,

What filesystem did you use here ?  I remember EXT3 performs surprisingly bad with sync_binlog=1 

http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/01/21/beware-ext3-and-sync-binlog-do-not-play-well-together/

In any case it looks like sync_binlog has very bad overhead.  in innodb_flush_log_at_trx comit=1 you should have 2 fsync per commit in single client (because of XA) with binlog it should be 3 as I understand - the fact performance gap is much larger is different. 

Does group commit works on stage of writiting to binary log or is it only on transactional log commit ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vadim,</p>
<p>What filesystem did you use here ?  I remember EXT3 performs surprisingly bad with sync_binlog=1 </p>
<p><a href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/01/21/beware-ext3-and-sync-binlog-do-not-play-well-together/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/01/21/beware-ext3-and-sync-binlog-do-not-play-well-together/</a></p>
<p>In any case it looks like sync_binlog has very bad overhead.  in innodb_flush_log_at_trx comit=1 you should have 2 fsync per commit in single client (because of XA) with binlog it should be 3 as I understand &#8211; the fact performance gap is much larger is different. </p>
<p>Does group commit works on stage of writiting to binary log or is it only on transactional log commit ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-731079</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-731079</guid>
		<description>Interesting results.

1) The huge drop in performance (sometimes over 50%) due to binlog is a surprise. According to the MySQL Manual &quot;Running a server with binary logging enabled makes performance about 1% slower.&quot; (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/binary-log.html) 

What caused the huge discrepancy between the 50% you measured and the 1% according to MySQL manual?

2) If the binlog IO is the bottleneck, would putting binlog on FusionIO (instead of RAID 10 HDD) speed things up?

3) What about innodb_support_xa? Will enabling that cause a further significant drop in performance?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting results.</p>
<p>1) The huge drop in performance (sometimes over 50%) due to binlog is a surprise. According to the MySQL Manual &#8220;Running a server with binary logging enabled makes performance about 1% slower.&#8221; (<a href="http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/binary-log.html" rel="nofollow">http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/binary-log.html</a>) </p>
<p>What caused the huge discrepancy between the 50% you measured and the 1% according to MySQL manual?</p>
<p>2) If the binlog IO is the bottleneck, would putting binlog on FusionIO (instead of RAID 10 HDD) speed things up?</p>
<p>3) What about innodb_support_xa? Will enabling that cause a further significant drop in performance?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darius Jahandarie</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-731033</link>
		<dc:creator>Darius Jahandarie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-731033</guid>
		<description>That hump at 64 threads in trx_commit=1 is pretty interesting, assuming it isn&#039;t a fluke in the data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That hump at 64 threads in trx_commit=1 is pretty interesting, assuming it isn&#8217;t a fluke in the data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VJ Kumar</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-730866</link>
		<dc:creator>VJ Kumar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-730866</guid>
		<description>3086.7 tps. looks pretty reasonable.  Clearly,  synchronous IO is bootlenecked on the raid controller/disk.  I am getting similar performance with a raid-10 with a simple dd command:

time dd if=/dev/zero of=a.dat oflag=sync count=100000
100000+0 records in
100000+0 records out
51200000 bytes (51 MB) copied, 27.9191 s, 1.8 MB/s

real    0m27.931s
user    0m0.047s
sys     0m3.906s

About 3.5K writes per sec.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3086.7 tps. looks pretty reasonable.  Clearly,  synchronous IO is bootlenecked on the raid controller/disk.  I am getting similar performance with a raid-10 with a simple dd command:</p>
<p>time dd if=/dev/zero of=a.dat oflag=sync count=100000<br />
100000+0 records in<br />
100000+0 records out<br />
51200000 bytes (51 MB) copied, 27.9191 s, 1.8 MB/s</p>
<p>real    0m27.931s<br />
user    0m0.047s<br />
sys     0m3.906s</p>
<p>About 3.5K writes per sec.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raine</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-730851</link>
		<dc:creator>Raine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-730851</guid>
		<description>Hi Vadim! Really cool article!

BTW, I was wondering how does XtraDB and the like behaves over different RAID-10 stripe sizes and the fact that actually a lot of Linux distros don&#039;t have their default partition boundaries aligned on raid stripe sizes (due to 63 sector offset from a msdos partition table). Have you ever considered (or have any plans) in making those tests? It would be great to see how XtraDB behaves on unaligned vs aligned systems.

I&#039;ve found some interesting links:
http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/140734
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/linux-raid/raid_setup
http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-2893     { unfortunately didn&#039;t find anything like this for XFS :( }

Best regards,
Raine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Vadim! Really cool article!</p>
<p>BTW, I was wondering how does XtraDB and the like behaves over different RAID-10 stripe sizes and the fact that actually a lot of Linux distros don&#8217;t have their default partition boundaries aligned on raid stripe sizes (due to 63 sector offset from a msdos partition table). Have you ever considered (or have any plans) in making those tests? It would be great to see how XtraDB behaves on unaligned vs aligned systems.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve found some interesting links:<br />
<a href="http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/140734" rel="nofollow">http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/140734</a><br />
<a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/linux-raid/raid_setup" rel="nofollow">http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/linux-raid/raid_setup</a><br />
<a href="http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-2893" rel="nofollow">http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-2893</a>     { unfortunately didn&#8217;t find anything like this for XFS <img src='http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  }</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Raine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicolas Steinmetz</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-730850</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicolas Steinmetz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:53:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-730850</guid>
		<description>Hi,

Few questions : 
- should innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 2 change anything on this ?
- if you use replication, by default tutorials put you on the green curve. Would you advise moving to &quot;trx_commit=1 &amp; binlog&quot; or even &quot;trx_commit=0 &amp; binlog&quot; ?

Thanks,
Nicolas</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Few questions :<br />
- should innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 2 change anything on this ?<br />
- if you use replication, by default tutorials put you on the green curve. Would you advise moving to &#8220;trx_commit=1 &amp; binlog&#8221; or even &#8220;trx_commit=0 &amp; binlog&#8221; ?</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Nicolas</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sheeri K. Cabral (Pythian)</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/02/28/maximal-write-througput-in-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-730844</link>
		<dc:creator>Sheeri K. Cabral (Pythian)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:41:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=2257#comment-730844</guid>
		<description>What about innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=2 ? That&#039;s a common optimization technique used for less risk (although it&#039;s still technically not 100% ACID compliant, it&#039;s consistent/durable to within a second, give or take depending on the filesystem&#039;s journaling, etc.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=2 ? That&#8217;s a common optimization technique used for less risk (although it&#8217;s still technically not 100% ACID compliant, it&#8217;s consistent/durable to within a second, give or take depending on the filesystem&#8217;s journaling, etc.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

