Subject: Re: Thread benchmarks
To: Andrew Doran <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew sporleder <email@example.com>
Date: 09/28/2007 13:57:58
On 9/28/07, Andrew Doran <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Back in March I posted some MySQL benchmarks after we switched to a 1:1
> threading model in -current *. I've spent a lot of time tuning the pthread
> library so I thought I'd post a followup. The original benchmark that I used
> (supersmack) now performs much better on -current that it did a few months
> ago, so I picked something else this time: MySQL sysbench.
> Most of the sysbench runs that I've seen to date have sysbench running on
> the same machine as the database. That's a good test but with the exception
> of small installations and out-of-band activity, production setups rarely
> look like that. So I ran sysbench itself on a seperate dual core system.
> Here are the results, comparing NetBSD 3 with NetBSD-current:
> And NetBSD-current compared to other systems:
> Note this is stock NetBSD-current with FreeBSD's malloc() (jemalloc) in
> libc. I'll be merging that some time soon.
> With the vmlocking CVS branch and Mindaugas' new scheduler NetBSD peaks
> around 500 TPS. There is a very gradual fall off in the number of TPS
> achieved as the number of connections begins to ramp up. I suspect that
> could be due to a weakness somewhere in the network stack, so I'm hopeful
> that a bit of time spent profiling with large numbers of connections could
> yield good results.
> * http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2007/03/02/0005.html
Can you talk more about the malloc replacement? Also- an interesting
thing about benchmarks in the past was the long-running stability of
netbsd. Did you see anything like that?