1 |
Ramon van Alteren wrote: |
2 |
> kashani wrote: |
3 |
>> Ramon van Alteren wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>>> did NTPL help you guys? |
6 |
>>>> |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Strangely it actually hurt our mysql-performance. Although mysql AB |
9 |
>>> recommends it. Haven't done any recent testing however. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> That's really odd. I've never seen Mysql do anything, but get much |
12 |
>> much faster with NTPL at least with our work loads. Web servers, |
13 |
>> mostly selects, PHP, 600-1000 connections to each of the db server. |
14 |
>> Load went from 1.5 to .3 on our dual proc boxes when we moved from |
15 |
>> 2.4 to 2.6 w/NTPL. I suspect it's the number of connections we have |
16 |
>> that caused most of the benefit in our case. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Let's start with "which version ?" |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I'd have to look through all testing docs for the period but I |
21 |
> remember that we tested NTPL with 4.0 and found it hurt our performance. |
22 |
NTPL was un-supported by MySQL on 4.0, see [1], and support started not |
23 |
much more than one year ago (prior patching the sources was needed) |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Similar work-load: webservers, reading from slaves, writing only to |
26 |
> the replication-master, PHP |
27 |
> Maybe different sizing? We have a very large database spanning well |
28 |
> over 35Gb now, with some extremely large tables in it. Most dbservers |
29 |
> are IO-bound not CPU-bound. |
30 |
then switching thread implementation model would make no difference ;-) |
31 |
|
32 |
[1] http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=19785 |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |