Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757348AbYCKVeU (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:34:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753881AbYCKVeM (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:34:12 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49520 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752469AbYCKVeL (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:34:11 -0400 X-Authenticated: #12956409 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19BsqBZpPlBSnf2w64aKyPn7rdDjzCAOve+YM7hE/ ASvyNBUBeciUe/ Message-ID: <47D6FAD0.1020608@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:34:08 +0100 From: Cyrus Massoumi User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14ubu (X11/20080306) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicholas Miell CC: Nick Piggin , "Molnar, Ingo" , LKML Subject: Re: Poor PostgreSQL scaling on Linux 2.6.25-rc5 (vs 2.6.22) References: <200803111749.29143.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <1205269674.12854.16.camel@entropy> In-Reply-To: <1205269674.12854.16.camel@entropy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1913 Lines: 47 Nicholas Miell wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 17:49 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> So PostgreSQL performance profile is actually much more interesting. >> To my dismay, I found that Linux 2.6.25-rc5 performs really badly >> after saturating the runqueues and subsequently increasing threads. >> 2.6.22 drops a little bit, but basically settles near the peak >> performance. With 2.6.25-rc5, throughput seems to be falling off >> linearly with the number of threads. >> > > The FreeBSD folks have a whole host of benchmark results (MySQL, > PostgreSQL, BIND, NSD, ebizzy, SPECjbb, etc.) located at > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/ that demonstrate that the > 2.6.23+ scheduler is worse than the 2.6.22 scheduler and both are worse > than FreeBSD 7. > > The interesting thing is that they've been running these tests > constantly for years now to demonstrate that their new scheduler hasn't > regressed compared to their old scheduler and as a benchmark against the > competition (i.e. Linux). > > Does anybody even do this at all for Linux? > > (Also, ignoring MySQL because it's a terrible piece of software at least > when regarding it's scalability is a bad idea. It's the M in LAMP, it > has a huge user base, and FreeBSD manages to outperform Linux with the > same unscalable piece of software.) Did you actually see this? http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/npiggin/sysbench/ FreeBSD does not outperform Linux, it's actually a bit faster according to Nick's tests. I cannot comment on BIND and NSD, but SPECjbb looks pretty close and the bad ebizzy performance seems to be an issue with glibc's memory allocator. greetings Cyrus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/