Re: mysql scaling questions
- From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:51:35 +0100
Bruce Evans wrote:
FreeBSD has more layers, with less optimization in each layer. Normally
this doesn't matter, since everyone knows that syscalls are expensive
and avoids them :-).
My point is that the majority of applications are written for Linux and
they are both syscall-intensive and faster there, so maybe something can
be done in FreeBSD.
No Pipe-based Context Switching? That should be included in benchmarks to
show FreeBSD slowness :-), since it is affected by both slow syscalls and
slow context switches.
Unfortunately, I found out this one on my own application.
Um, execl and process creation are not syscall-intensive. They take about
1 syscall each.
Yes, in what amounts to a tight loop. They don't try to measure syscalls
directly but I'd say they are intensive.
Linux wins this benchmark by a lot mainly because too much weight is given
to the file copy benchmarks
In this particular instance I don't care about file system performance
(and I believe that unixbench's benchmarks are outdated in this way and
measure more of the file system cache than they should). Though it would
be nice to have a FreeBSD file system that doesn't suck :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- Re: mysql scaling questions
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: mysql scaling questions
- Prev by Date: Re: mysql scaling questions
- Next by Date: Re: mysql scaling questions
- Previous by thread: Re: mysql scaling questions
- Next by thread: Re: mysql scaling questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|