End of test sessions [Was Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 9]
Davide D'Amico
davide.damico at contactlab.com
Sun Mar 31 21:52:06 UTC 2013
Il 26.03.2013 13:00 freebsd-performance-request at freebsd.org ha scritto:
> Send freebsd-performance mailing list submissions to
> freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> freebsd-performance-request at freebsd.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> freebsd-performance-owner at freebsd.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of freebsd-performance digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico)
> 2. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico)
> 3. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Adrian Chadd)
> 4. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:00:14 +0100
> From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico at contactlab.com>
> To: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID: <5150586E.5040408 at contactlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5
> MySQL
> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query using
> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second
> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using
> 2
> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads.
>
> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent:
> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895
>
> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457
>
> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*):
> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058
>
> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**):
> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to
> the
> previous one)
>
> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD:
> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062
>
> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD:
> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672
>
> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not
> only in standard oltp tests.
> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers.
>
> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests.
>
> d.
>
>
> (*)
> Using:
> - sysctl.conf:
> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
> - loader.conf:
> - kern.hz=100;
>
> (**)
> Using:
> - sysctl.conf:
> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
> - loader.conf:
> - kern.hz=100;
> - malloc.conf -> 3N
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:45:58 +0100
> From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico at contactlab.com>
> To: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID: <51506326.9020109 at contactlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto:
>> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5
>> MySQL
>> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query
>> using
>> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second
>> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using
>> 2
>> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads.
>>
>> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent:
>> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895
>>
>> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
>> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457
>>
>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*):
>> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058
>>
>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**):
>> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to
>> the
>> previous one)
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD:
>> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD:
>> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672
>>
>> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not
>> only in standard oltp tests.
>> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers.
>>
>> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests.
>>
>> d.
>>
>>
>> (*)
>> Using:
>> - sysctl.conf:
>> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>> - loader.conf:
>> - kern.hz=100;
>>
>> (**)
>> Using:
>> - sysctl.conf:
>> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>> - loader.conf:
>> - kern.hz=100;
>> - malloc.conf -> 3N
>
> Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related to
> oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have:
>
> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
> 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218
>
> CentOS 6:
> 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282
>
> FreeBSD 9.1:
> 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787
>
> I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is, I
> hope so.
>
> I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need.
>
> Thanks,
> d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:16 -0700
> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org>
> To: "Davide D'Amico" <davide.damico at contactlab.com>
> Cc: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ-Vmo=ne+ck17Dwy18AuLLwta690owSK4_iRoUdAcfvRHv-Fg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see
> whether it's the kernel or userland?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On 25 March 2013 07:45, Davide D'Amico <davide.damico at contactlab.com>
> wrote:
>> Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto:
>>
>>> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5
>>> MySQL
>>> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query
>>> using
>>> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per
>>> second
>>> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one
>>> using 2
>>> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads.
>>>
>>> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent:
>>> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895
>>>
>>> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
>>> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457
>>>
>>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*):
>>> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058
>>>
>>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**):
>>> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to
>>> the
>>> previous one)
>>>
>>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD:
>>> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062
>>>
>>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD:
>>> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672
>>>
>>> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and
>>> not
>>> only in standard oltp tests.
>>> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers.
>>>
>>> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests.
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>>
>>> (*)
>>> Using:
>>> - sysctl.conf:
>>> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>>> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>>> - loader.conf:
>>> - kern.hz=100;
>>>
>>> (**)
>>> Using:
>>> - sysctl.conf:
>>> - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>>> - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>>> - loader.conf:
>>> - kern.hz=100;
>>> - malloc.conf -> 3N
>>
>>
>> Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related
>> to
>> oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have:
>>
>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
>> 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218
>>
>> CentOS 6:
>> 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1:
>> 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787
>>
>> I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is,
>> I hope
>> so.
>>
>> I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> d.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-performance at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:20:26 +0100
> From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico at contactlab.com>
> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org>
> Cc: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID: <5150875A.1000707 at contactlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Il 25/03/13 18:11, Adrian Chadd ha scritto:
>> Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see
>> whether it's the kernel or userland?
>
> Sure, do you have a link on how to install gnu/linux on a fbsd jail?
>
> Is ok if I use the VM I created in vmware (so it will be VMWARE ->
> FreeBSD -> Linux Jail)?
>
Hi, thanks for your support and ideas but I have to stop my test
sessions because I need to use my pair of servers in production (and
very quickly, too), so at this moment they'll remain fbsd 9.1 :)
Thank you again,
d.
More information about the freebsd-performance
mailing list