Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7899FB374 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:56:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93869-06 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:56:17 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:38.447842 by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from smeagol.cambrium.nl (smeagol.cambrium.nl [217.19.16.145]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5EA9FB326 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:56:28 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 24139 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2007 15:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.169?) (84.245.2.46) by smeagol.cambrium.nl with SMTP; 2 Mar 2007 15:49:45 -0000 Received-SPF: none (smeagol.cambrium.nl: domain of acmmailing@tweakers.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) Message-ID: <45E84790.6050609@tweakers.net> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:49:36 +0100 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jim C. Nasby" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [kris@obsecurity.org: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems] References: <20070227182621.GE29041@decibel.org> <20070302150129.GF4885@alvh.no-ip.org> In-Reply-To: <20070302150129.GF4885@alvh.no-ip.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200703/58 X-Sequence-Number: 23463 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Interesting -- the MySQL/Linux graph is very similar to the graphs from > the .nl magazine posted last year. I think this suggests that the > "MySQL deficiency" was rather a performance bug in Linux, not in MySQL > itself ... The latest benchmark we did was both with Solaris and Linux on the same box, both showed such a drop. So I doubt its "not in MySQL", although it might be possible to fix the load MySQL's usage pattern poses on a system, via the OS. And since MySQL 5.0.32 is less bad than 4.1.22 on that system. We didn't have time to test 5.0.25 again, but .32 scaled better, so at least some of the scaling issues where actually fixed in MySQL itself. Best regards, Arjen