mysql scaling questions

[Ivan Voras]

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(and I believe that unixbench's benchmarks are outdated in this way and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 :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/attachments/20080101/10863f8c/signature.pgp