Comments for Alex Tomic's tech blog http://tomictech.com Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:03:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by Buy a car online http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-47 Buy a car online Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:32:58 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-47 I read a simliar post just the other day by Sandra Kosineck but yours is much better. I read a simliar post just the other day by Sandra Kosineck but yours is much better.

]]> Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by Vintage Electric Guitar http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-44 Vintage Electric Guitar Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:16:04 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-44 Gang - I am not commenting on any blogs - if someone is posting on your blog saying it's me - it's not... The joys of trying to help Gang - I am not commenting on any blogs - if someone is posting on your blog saying it’s me - it’s not… The joys of trying to help

]]> Comment on A lesson in never letting your filesystem fill up too much by Shlomo Priymak http://tomictech.com/2008/06/26/a-lesson-in-never-letting-your-filesystem-fill-up-too-much/#comment-36 Shlomo Priymak Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:00:15 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=13#comment-36 Good to know, thanks for the heads-up! I personally don't think it was your fault at all - this kind of a bug is a *serious* problem in the engine. On the other hand, if it were to do a full rollback, it would take a tremendous amount of time. Hope you had backups :) Good to know, thanks for the heads-up!

I personally don’t think it was your fault at all - this kind of a bug is a *serious* problem in the engine.
On the other hand, if it were to do a full rollback, it would take a tremendous amount of time.

Hope you had backups :)

]]> Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by atomic http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-34 atomic Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:31:51 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-34 Just a quick follow up on the problems I ran into at 512 connections -- it seems as if you need to check your max open file descriptors setting (ulimit -n) before running mysql-proxy. two descriptors per expected connection. Mine was set to 1024 which is why i could not get more than 512 connections. Just a quick follow up on the problems I ran into at 512 connections — it seems as if you need to check your max open file descriptors setting (ulimit -n) before running mysql-proxy. two descriptors per expected connection. Mine was set to 1024 which is why i could not get more than 512 connections.

]]> Comment on Testing MySQL sequential IO performance with different IO schedulers - Part 1 by atomic http://tomictech.com/2008/06/23/testing-mysql-sequential-io-performance-with-different-io-schedulers-part-1/#comment-33 atomic Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:39:51 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=12#comment-33 @Peter: Yes, I think these results are mostly just for interest and gaining an understanding of the schedulers. I hope it also convinced anyone that is still using 2.4 kernel to upgrade :) I didn't expect to see such a difference with such a simple environment but it just goes to show how important it is to always performance test everything and never make assumptions! @Peter: Yes, I think these results are mostly just for interest and gaining an understanding of the schedulers. I hope it also convinced anyone that is still using 2.4 kernel to upgrade :)

I didn’t expect to see such a difference with such a simple environment but it just goes to show how important it is to always performance test everything and never make assumptions!

]]> Comment on Testing MySQL sequential IO performance with different IO schedulers - Part 1 by Peter Zaitsev http://tomictech.com/2008/06/23/testing-mysql-sequential-io-performance-with-different-io-schedulers-part-1/#comment-32 Peter Zaitsev Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:45:18 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=12#comment-32 Well RAID level would matter a lot here. Smart RAID may make NOOP better though CFQ is often good choice for database workloads. Well RAID level would matter a lot here. Smart RAID may make NOOP better though CFQ is often good choice for database workloads.

]]> Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by Pages tagged "concurrent" http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-31 Pages tagged "concurrent" Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:03:58 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-31 [...] bookmarks tagged concurrent mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests saved by 3 others     Phillychesse bookmarked on 07/03/08 | [...] [...] bookmarks tagged concurrent mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests saved by 3 others     Phillychesse bookmarked on 07/03/08 | [...]

]]> Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by atomic http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-30 atomic Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:53:41 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-30 @realneel: Sorry, no fancy graphs, but here are the per-request averages I got: For the proxy: proxy-8.log: avg: 0.0526s proxy-16.log: avg: 0.0832s proxy-32.log: avg: 0.1379s proxy-64.log: avg: 0.2446s proxy-128.log: avg: 0.5125s proxy-256.log: avg: 1.0781s proxy-300.log: avg: 1.3313s proxy-350.log: avg: 1.5413s proxy-480.log: avg: 2.2983s Baseline, one of the hosts: ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-1-threads.log: avg: 0.0073s ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-8-threads.log: avg: 0.0448s ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-16-threads.log: avg: 0.0944s ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-32-threads.log: avg: 0.2002s ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-64-threads.log: avg: 0.4176s ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-256-threads.log: avg: 3.1390s Hope that's legible, if not i'll create a new post out of the latency data. @realneel:

Sorry, no fancy graphs, but here are the per-request averages I got:

For the proxy:

proxy-8.log: avg: 0.0526s
proxy-16.log: avg: 0.0832s
proxy-32.log: avg: 0.1379s
proxy-64.log: avg: 0.2446s
proxy-128.log: avg: 0.5125s
proxy-256.log: avg: 1.0781s
proxy-300.log: avg: 1.3313s
proxy-350.log: avg: 1.5413s
proxy-480.log: avg: 2.2983s

Baseline, one of the hosts:
ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-1-threads.log: avg: 0.0073s
ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-8-threads.log: avg: 0.0448s
ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-16-threads.log: avg: 0.0944s
ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-32-threads.log: avg: 0.2002s
ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-64-threads.log: avg: 0.4176s
ip-10-251-71-21.ec2.internal-256-threads.log: avg: 3.1390s

Hope that’s legible, if not i’ll create a new post out of the latency data.

]]> Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by realneel http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-27 realneel Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:53:45 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-27 Do you have latency data? Do you have latency data?

]]> Comment on mysql proxy 0.6.1 performance tests by atomic http://tomictech.com/2008/07/02/mysql-proxy-061-performance-tests/#comment-26 atomic Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:55:04 +0000 http://tomictech.com/?p=14#comment-26 @pfreixes: For these tests, I'm only using "out-of-the-box" functionality provided by mysql-proxy, using the command line argument in the post. If you want to write your own code, you can do nifty things in the connect_host() hook, like deciding when and where to connect based on whatever criteria. @sheeri: Not that I noticed, although the tests were only over the course of an hour or two while i had the machines up. But for each successively bigger tests (32, 64, 128,etc.) I did not restart the proxy, so a pretty substantial amount of traffic went through it. As for memory footprint, argh, I wish I had checked. I watched CPU usage closely (mysql-proxy barely used 100% until the 128-thread tests) but I don't recall noticing high memory use. I guess that'll have to be for part 2 :) @pfreixes: For these tests, I’m only using “out-of-the-box” functionality provided by mysql-proxy, using the command line argument in the post. If you want to write your own code, you can do nifty things in the connect_host() hook, like deciding when and where to connect based on whatever criteria.

@sheeri: Not that I noticed, although the tests were only over the course of an hour or two while i had the machines up. But for each successively bigger tests (32, 64, 128,etc.) I did not restart the proxy, so a pretty substantial amount of traffic went through it.

As for memory footprint, argh, I wish I had checked. I watched CPU usage closely (mysql-proxy barely used 100% until the 128-thread tests) but I don’t recall noticing high memory use. I guess that’ll have to be for part 2 :)

]]>