The other day a customer asked me to do capacity planning for their web server farm. I was looking at the CPU graph for one of the web servers that had Hyper-threading switched ON and thought to myself: “This must be quite a misleading graph – it shows 30% CPU usage. It can’t really be that this server can handle 3 times more work?”

Or can it?

I decided to do what we usually do in such case – I decided to test it and find out the truth. Turns out – there’s more to it than meets the eye.

How Intel Hyper-Threading works

Before we get to my benchmark results, let’s talk a little bit about hyper-threading. According to Intel, Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology (Intel® HT Technology) uses processor resources more …

The MySQL 5.6 Release has introduced some changes to how two phase commit works and is managed.  In particular, the commit phase of transactions to the binary log is now serialized and this behavior is something we identified fairly immediately.  We implement a group commit algorithm that needed to be altered so that TokuDB’s group commit to its recovery log would function effectively.

As part of our effort to verify the new Binary Log Group Commit functionality introduced in TokuDB 7.5.4 for Percona Server, we wanted to demonstrate the substantial increase in throughput scaling but also show the bottleneck caused by the skewed interaction between the binary log group commit algorithm in MySQL 5.6 and the transaction commit mechanism used in TokuDB 7.5.3 for Percona Server.  During our testing, we noticed that the throughput scaling was diminished when we turned on the binlog.

Here are the relevant system …

TokuDB offers high throughput for write intensive applications, and the throughput scales with the number of concurrent clients.  However, when the binary log is turned on, TokuDB 7.5.2 throughput suffers.  The throughput scaling problem is caused by a poor interaction between the binary log group commit algorithm in MySQL 5.6 and the way TokuDB commits transactions.   TokuDB 7.5.4 for Percona Server 5.6 fixes this problem, and the result is roughly an order of magnitude increase in SysBench throughput for in memory workloads.

MySQL uses two phase commit protocol to synchronize the MySQL binary log with the recovery logs of the storage engines when a transaction commits.  Since fsync’s are used to ensure the durability of the data in the various logs, and fsync’s can be very slow, the fsync can easily become a bottleneck.  A …

This post recently caught my attention on Planet MySQL. If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest that you go and do so, and also read the comments. I think Matthew’s request for the queries so that others can run comparative benchmarks is very interesting, and while I don’t have access to the queries used to produce … Continue reading Benchmarking Joomla →

Related posts:

1. Updated mysql-proxy benchmarking script (for proxy 0.7) My previous post contained a lua script for MySQL proxy...
2. Using MySQL Proxy to benchmark query performance By transparently sitting …

In a few weeks I’m presenting “Performance Benchmarking: Tips, Tricks, and Lessons Learned” at Percona Live London 2014 (November 3-4). I continue to learn lessons and improve my benchmarking capabilities, so the content is a full upgrade from my presentation at Percona Live Santa Clara in April 2013. Anyone interested in achieving and sustaining the best performance out of their software/hardware/application should attend.

Also, Tokutek is sponsoring so we’ll be available in the expo hall throughout the show.

If you are attending or in the area and want to learn more about …

New to TokuDB® v7.5 is a feature we’re calling “Read Free Replication” (RFR). RFR allows TokuDB replication slaves to process insert, update, and delete statements with almost no read IO. As a result, the slave can easily keep up with the master (no lag) as well as brings all the read IO capacity of the slave for read-scaling your workload.

The goal of this blog is two-fold: (1) to cover why RFR is important and how RFR works and (2) to run a simple before/after benchmark showing the impact of RFR on a well known workload. Later this week I’ll post another blog showing other interesting use-cases for RFR beyond this first benchmark.

Read Free Replication: The Why and How

In MySQL, a replication slave does less work than the master because there is no need for a slave to execute SELECT statements (only INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE). However, a MYSQL slave can struggle to keep up with the master because replication is …

Tesora, previously called Parelastic, asked Percona to do a sysbench benchmark evaluation of its Database Virtualization Engine on specific architectures on Amazon EC2.

The focus of Tesora is to provide a scalable Database As A Service platform for OpenStack. The Database Virtualization Engine (DVE) plays a part in this as it aims at allowing databases to scale transparently across multiple MySQL shards.

DVE was open sourced last week. Downloads and …

If you did not read my first blog post about Mark Callaghan’s (@markcallaghan) benchmarks as documented in his blog, Small Datum, you may want to skim through it now for a little context.

——————-

On March 11th, Mark, a former Google and now Facebook database guru, published an insertion rate benchmark comparing MySQL outfitted with the InnoDB storage engine with two NoSQL alternatives — basic MongoDB and …

A little background…

When I ventured into sales and marketing (I’m an engineer by education) I learned I would often have to interpret and simply summarize the business value that is sometimes hidden in benchmarks. Simply put, the people who approve the purchase of products like TokuDB® and TokuMX™ appreciate the executive summary.

Therefore, I plan to publish a multipart series here on TokuView where I will share my simple summaries and thoughts on business value for the benchmarks Mark Callaghan (@markcallaghan), a former Google and now Facebook database guru, is publishing on his blog, Small Datum.

I’m going to start with his first benchmark post and work my way forward to …

Benchmarking, and benchmarking the cloud, is incredibly error prone. I provided guidance though this minefield in the benchmarking chapter of my book (Systems Performance: Enterprise and the Cloud); that chapter can be read online on the InformIT site. I also gave a lightning talk about benchmarking gone wrong at Surge last year. In this post, I’m going to cut to the chase and show you the tools I commonly use for basic cloud benchmarking.

As explained in the benchmarking chapter, I do not run these tools passively. I perform Active Benchmarking, where I use a …