Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD Benchmarks With Its New Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    UFS may perform many times better than EXT4 with some Linux kernel releases in SQLite, but with PostMark the EXT4 file-system definitely carries the advantage.
    man mount -> nobarrier

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nitedog View Post
      Thats odd, normally those are the tests I would care about, when comparing a server OS. ray tracing? cdraw? who cares again?

      mysql performance, apache, postgres, memcache, php.

      Those are benchmark comparisons that would actully matter.
      The differences in the tests you refer to are big enough to warrant further investigation. Both kernels could benefit from the performance lead in the other kernel, because it can apparently be handled more efficiently.

      side note, people still use KDE? really??!?
      lol, your first post and immediately you start trolling

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by nitedog View Post
        Thats odd, normally those are the tests I would care about, when comparing a server OS.
        You would if done properly. At least apache isn't interesting for you, I don't know about the second one. I bet if you use Ext2 or Ext3 and play with mount options you'll get much better results.

        side note, people still use KDE? really??!?
        Where did you come from?

        Comment


        • #19
          A good sqllite test would be nice, as mentioned earlier it's used in a lot of different software, like Firefox. Just testing the number of inserts you can do in 1 second is not a useful benchmark, though, and all you have to do to prove this is to look at the results. If the user experience was really that much worse, no one would have that FS feature enabled. (barriers, i think?) A useful benchmark would be to create a realistic workload. Maybe even trace the work Firefox is doing. Run a few insers and updates, along with several queries. Nothing just does straight inserts like that, though - if a program did want to, it would place all of them inside a single transaction, and still wouldn't show the performance problems this test has.

          Comment


          • #20
            And.... how many sqlite transactions do you actually DO in real life. Sure, ff uses it. That's nice. How many transactions does it do with it? 4? (intentionally left without context)

            Comment


            • #21
              Note: EXT4 is terrible with transactions. There are ways to tweak it though, and ways to tweak the database to not sync after EVERY SINGLE BLOODY INSERT!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                Note: EXT4 is terrible with transactions. There are ways to tweak it though, and ways to tweak the database to not sync after EVERY SINGLE BLOODY INSERT!
                Performance at the cost of data loss? No, thanks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ranguvar View Post
                  Except many desktop *nix apps use SQLite internally, and a speedup of that means a faster program as a whole (Firefox, anyone?).
                  Try again.
                  Well, I am fully aware that several desktop apps use database programs internally, and that firefox uses sqlite. Hence I categorically asked if so such great speed is required for desktop purposes. (Hint: Desktop search and antivirus.)

                  And speaking of obsession with database usage in applications, here is an anecdote. Why is that amarok must need mysql? On Gentoo (which is by and large close-to-upstream without much distro customization), I start amarok and the first thing it shows me is an ugly error that mysql is not running and I need to setup a password and database, all for listening to music. I have only a few hundred music files and I wish there was a USE flag to turn mysql off, instead using a simpler or no backend.

                  The next thing we know is Oracle launching a new browser, that uses its flagship database running on zfs/btrfs to manage your bookmarks, cache, cookies, mail and other kstuff, never mind its bog slow at rendering. </sarcasm>

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by hdas View Post
                    And speaking of obsession with database usage in applications, here is an anecdote. Why is that amarok must need mysql?
                    Yeah, using a full-fledged database server like mysql for a desktop app is kind of overkill. That's why embedded databases like sqlite are so popular these days - the power of an SQL engine for doing queries, while running entirely in-process.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      Performance at the cost of data loss? No, thanks.
                      Especially since default settings in Ext4 already are tweaked on performance at the cost of data loss. (as in, data=ordered instead of data=journal)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                        Yeah, using a full-fledged database server like mysql for a desktop app is kind of overkill. That's why embedded databases like sqlite are so popular these days - the power of an SQL engine for doing queries, while running entirely in-process.
                        Hence why at least Fedora ships Amarok with mysql-embedded (which does not run as a separate service) instead of full-blown mysql.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                          Especially since default settings in Ext4 already are tweaked on performance at the cost of data loss. (as in, data=ordered instead of data=journal)
                          But it's safer then writeback and faster then journal.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            But it's safer then writeback and faster then journal.
                            But due to Ext4 extensive caching it's pretty haphazard if you're doing something where your system might hardlock like eg testing drivers nowadays...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                              Performance at the cost of data loss? No, thanks.
                              The comparison is between the filesystems and the way they are treated by the database.

                              ext4 vs UFS.
                              UFS is a lot closer to ext2 than ext4.
                              And in the same database tests where UFS made it win, ext2 would also destroy ext4.

                              Which makes the whole test irrelevant.
                              You can make ext4 fast, and yes, at the cost of POTENTIAL data loss (not guaranteed data loss), and DOING SO will NOT make your data loss any MORE likely than by using the faster filesystem, in this case UFS.

                              In fact, your data is probably still safer on ext4 than UFS, even if you adjust ext4 to be as fast as UFS.

                              Alternatively, reduce the rate that the database calls sync. Instead of after EVERY transaction, limit it to once every 5 seconds. Data loss? Maximum of 5 seconds, but still wickedly fast.


                              Then, of course, comes the major important point -- what are you doing with sqlite that is so important that you can't afford to lose a few seconds of data? If the absolutely last second of data is so important that you can't lose it, I STRONGLY suggest that you switch to a proper database.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                                Hence why at least Fedora ships Amarok with mysql-embedded (which does not run as a separate service) instead of full-blown mysql.
                                Honestly I wish more applications would use some other embedded SQL solution other than SQLite.

                                If your SQLite database grows beyond a certain point, your performance will be horrid and the only option at that point is to use something else. Embedded MySQL doesn't have those kinds of scalability issues (Well, at least the point where it doesn't scale is quite a bit higher).

                                Also should your application want to switch over to a full on SQL server, the application largely just needs to change how it connects or opens the database and it can go from there. It's easy migration without the SQL dialect/quirk game.

                                PostgreSQL has an embedded option too.

                                Sure MySQL or PostgreSQL may have a larger memory footprint but it's shared between applications. Heck, if you're running KDE, akondi probably already has a copy of MySQL running for you. IMO, 25MB isn't a horrible amount of RAM for your typical desktop system. What's that... a browser tab worth of memory?

                                /offtopicrant

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X