… more features, which give more overhead. Profiling MySQL 5.0 vs MySQL 4.1 couple years ago, I have seen biggest….50 1221.40 1139.60 1139.20 1076.59 1018.64 4 2274.83 2167.92 2031.80 2042.51 1937.64 1830.80 8 3879.11 3746.29 3606.02 3681…..70 5881.40 5572.50 32 4591.42 4864.46 4698.39 7762.32 7548.93 7138.54 64 4688.41 5078.02…
Post: TPC-H Run on MySQL 5.1 and 6.0
April 10, 2008 By 16 Comments
… us first take a look at MySQL 5.1.23 vs 6.0.4 results for 10GB data set which “fits… has already Wrote about it in his MySQL 5.1 vs 6.0 in TPC-H Queries post As a Summary… for query processing was not too bad, however with 16,32,64 cores it is just too bad.
Post: Economics of Performance Optimization
March 13, 2008 By 9 Comments
… economics , resources and risks . First lets talk about optimizing application vs getting better hardware. With application optimization typically you have rather… x86-64 box with 32G with good price/performance value while if you would like to go significantly higher like 32 cores… downtime. So now what is about using your Own Resources vs Hiring Consultants ? Again we should think about economics resources and…
Post: Modeling MySQL Capacity by Measuring Resource Consumptions
March 8, 2011 By 1 Comment
… tbl size 554.04M 0 12.83M 324.99 0 32.65k 0 # Query size 294.90M 14 783 158.14… 947.67k 0 70.34k 0.54 0.99 56.64 0 # IO r wait 7127s 0 266s 4ms 12ms 238ms… 1.02 1.96 0.33 0.99 # Bytes sent 32 2.88G 80 127.65k 1.72k 3.88k 1… performance, what kind of hardware provides better balance of CPU vs IO utilization as well as as simple as how much…
Post: Heikki Tuuri answers to Innodb questions, Part II
November 4, 2007 By 13 Comments
…ahead is completed? HT: A query thread normally posts about 64 page read requests per a readahead. The InnoDB buffer is…4.1.xx. PZ: I should note MySQL 5.0 vs 4.1 has a lot of performance differences and …(from 16GB, 2 two-year old HT’ed XEONs to 32 GB, 4x quad-core AMD Opterons. Yes it helped:-). …
Comment: ext4 vs xfs on SSD
March 19, 2012 By 26 Comments
… draw (2036 tps vs. 2070 tps). At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. 1829 tps). At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. 1601…
Post: Testing the Virident FlashMAX II
March 21, 2013 By 1 Comment
… E5-2660 machine with 16 physical and 32 virtual cores. (I had originally planned to…see a read throughput of approximately 2580MiB/sec vs. 1450MiB/sec with the previous generation of …FlashMax 1400M synchronous random read test stopped after 64 threads, reaching a synchronous random read throughput …
Post: MySQL-Memcached or NOSQL Tokyo Tyrant - part 3
October 19, 2009 By 25 Comments
…performance differ or change? One knock on Tokyo -vs- Memcached is Tokyo is not distributed by default. …had enough memory but I increased the threads from 64 to 128. As time permits I should …do these tests: The above number were run with 32 Threads, Tyrant was started with 8 threads and 128M…
