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:
        http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/sysbench/netbsd.png
And NetBSD-current compared to other systems:
        http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/sysbench/netbsd-and-others.png
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.
Thanks,

Andrew
* http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2007/03/02/0005.html

This is all very impressive. Congratulations -- clearly your work has

been paying off.
It would be interesting if you could include x86 Solaris in future

benchmarks.
Perry

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
http://www.netbsd.org/~ober/

Some basic tests on a 4x P-III 500mhz Xeon with 2MB L2.

I created one million rows and ran sysbench in oltp mode in both default

ReadWrite, and Readonly.
Did not make use of ZFS or any other optimizations.

Will be testing the recommendations for Mysql on Solaris.
Jaime Fournier

ober@netbsd.org

Nice! If you fancy doing more tests, here are some files that might be of

use:
http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/sysbench/my.cnf

http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/sysbench/jemalloc-libc.tar.gz

http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/sysbench/start.sh

http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/sysbench/netbsd.bz2
start.sh ups the limits and sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH so that MySQL is using the

libc with jemalloc. netbsd.bz2 is a kernel from the 'vmlocking' branch. It

will panic if you unmount a file system, so make sure you do a few syncs

before shutting the machine down if you do run it.. If you experiment with

driving the machine with sysbench remotely, the host needs to be reasonably

powerful (say, a 3GHz Pentium 4) or it will not be able to keep the DB fully

loaded.
Thanks,

Andrew

Something that Jeff Roberson mentioned to me (but that I have not tried to

reproduce) is that once you do a read/write run, the performance of the DB

is permanently changed. So it may make sense to reinitialize the DB if doing

another read-only run.
Andrew

Interesting indeed!  Thanks for that feedback!
Darren

It would be a brighter place if you stopped pushing people around and

weren't such a deadweight. How about you benchmark it?
Andrew

Andrew, there's a lot of merit in including Solaris10/OpenSolaris

benchmarks in the

result as that's where a lot of big databases run today...numbers from

[Open]Solaris

are much more relevant in this type of measure than OpenBSD - they're

only relevant

if we want to see want NetBSD 2.0 or older was like.
In addition to stating the CPUs, can you please include the disk

configuration info.?
Cheers,

Darren

I tried to install S10U2 but my install media are scratched. A few years

back when I installed Solaris x86, the I2O drivers didn't work with DPT /

Adaptec RAID controllers (and I hear that they are slated for removal in

'Nevada'). The machine also has a Compaq RAID controller but from what I

remember swapping the disks onto that means wiping the contents. I will

give it a go when I have some free time.
I also tried Dragonfly but despite hours trying I couldn't get an SMP
There is some detail in my e-mail to Warner. I'm using single, removable

disks at 80MB/s but it doesn't really matter since the tests I ran were

read-only. A read-write test would be limited by the disk so eventually, all

the systems would likely produce similar graphs. On the other hand, if

someone has an external FC array that they'd like to donate/lend, I can do a

read-write test. :-)
Andrew

Darren, thats maybe a reason for a benchmark and not how Perry did ask

in his usual way (I can understand Andrews response).
Andrew, thank you very much for all the work you are doing here.
Regards,

Bernd

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:04:24 +0200
I saw nothing wrong in how Perry asked.  Look at the text above -- he

simply remarked that it would be interesting.  It also isn't reasonable

to say "you do it" when the goal is to get comparable numbers -- you

want the same test setup, which Andrew has.
Indeed, on this and other matters.  My thanks, too. 
		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Thanks for the positive attitude.
.pm