--001636e0a92d00c30604aaa17860
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?
Regards,
LD
--001636e0a92d00c30604aaa17860--
--------------enig766A581C50C6EAE5A6CEF026
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am 16.08.2011 17:59, schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
> as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
>
> my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
>
> right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?
>
> Regards,
>
> LD
>
why do you believe without any information you will get
a useful answer? "i have a performance problem" is simply
NO information if you even do not tell which storage engine
and wich sort of problem in which context
if you should update can nobody answer for you because we
do not know if you have any crappy apps / scripts which
would have troubles?
we have upgraded some hundret webspaces and two dbmail-servers
in februray becaus we know our self written applications and
having test-environments, if you can do this can nobody say
--------------enig766A581C50C6EAE5A6CEF026
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk5KoowACgkQhmBjz394AnlxvgCfasn/McxYUNEsfdjzlQSM k4H0
3MYAoI6R+RrA1xKpgaXNFtnIKcmQVKMA
=u5a0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig766A581C50C6EAE5A6CEF026--
--20cf303bff86b2b35c04aaa4c258
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
correct. you have to understand the problem first.
but still its recommendable to always use latest stable version.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Reindl Harald
>
>
> Am 16.08.2011 17:59, schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
> > as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
> >
> > my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
> >
> > right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > LD
> >
> why do you believe without any information you will get
> a useful answer? "i have a performance problem" is simply
> NO information if you even do not tell which storage engine
> and wich sort of problem in which context
>
> if you should update can nobody answer for you because we
> do not know if you have any crappy apps / scripts which
> would have troubles?
>
> we have upgraded some hundret webspaces and two dbmail-servers
> in februray becaus we know our self written applications and
> having test-environments, if you can do this can nobody say
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Prabhat Kumar
MySQL DBA
My Blog: http://adminlinux.blogspot.com
My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/profileprabhat
--20cf303bff86b2b35c04aaa4c258--
I've been running some bench marking between 5.1 and 5.5 myself and haven't n=
otice any huge performance improvements on 5.5. Even though white papers cla=
im it put performs 5.1. Any noticing the same or have some input in my findi=
ngs?
Regards,
Alvin
On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Prabhat Kumar
> correct. you have to understand the problem first.
> but still its recommendable to always use latest stable version.
>=20
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Reindl Harald
ote:
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Am 16.08.2011 17:59, schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
>>> as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
>>>=20
>>> my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
>>>=20
>>> right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>>=20
>>> LD
>>>=20
>> why do you believe without any information you will get
>> a useful answer? "i have a performance problem" is simply
>> NO information if you even do not tell which storage engine
>> and wich sort of problem in which context
>>=20
>> if you should update can nobody answer for you because we
>> do not know if you have any crappy apps / scripts which
>> would have troubles?
>>=20
>> we have upgraded some hundret webspaces and two dbmail-servers
>> in februray becaus we know our self written applications and
>> having test-environments, if you can do this can nobody say
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Best Regards,
>=20
> Prabhat Kumar
> MySQL DBA
>=20
> My Blog: http://adminlinux.blogspot.com
> My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/profileprabhat
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dgcdmg-mysql-2@m.gmane.o rg
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CC5C39.DB2EF240
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know my previous email was vague, it was sent via smartphone. =
Iâ=99ve got a simple PHP page pulling information from one of =
larger database tables:
=20
PHP Code:
=20
| " . $row['member_id'] . " | ";" . $row['fname'] . " | ";
--------------enig4CA58DAABCCC4F8CB96BA526
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
you noticed that most optimizing in 5.5 affects InnoDB
and if you are using MyISAm in your benchmark it
is useless?
having MySQL 5.5 running on InnoDB with some GB big tables
and REALLY concuerrent load as for a mailserver (dbmail)
you will notice a hughe performance increasment
Am 16.08.2011 23:28, schrieb Alvin Ramos:
> I know my previous email was vague, it was sent via smartphone. =20
> Iâ=99ve got a simple PHP page pulling information from one of larg=
er database tables:
>=20
> =20
>=20
> PHP Code:
>=20
> =20
>=20
>
>=20
>
| " . $row['member_id'] . " | ";" . $row['fname'] . " | ";
This is a poor benchmark because the query never changes. Query cache takes o=
ver after first request.=20
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:28 PM, "Alvin Ramos"
e:
> I know my previous email was vague, it was sent via smartphone. Iâ=99=
ve got a simple PHP page pulling information from one of larger database tab=
les:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> PHP Code:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
>=20
>
>=20
>
>=20
>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> // set server access variables
>=20
> $host =3D "127.0.0.1";
>=20
> $user =3D "web";
>=20
> $pass =3D "password";
>=20
> $db =3D "md ";
>=20
>=20
>=20
> // open connections to database
>=20
> $connect =3D mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass) or die ("Unable to connect=
!");
>=20
>=20
>=20
> // select database to use
>=20
> mysql_select_db($db) or die ("Unable to select database!");
>=20
>=20
>=20
> // create SQL query string
>=20
> $query =3D "SELECT * FROM members limit 1000";
>=20
>=20
>=20
> //execute query and obtain result set
>=20
> $result =3D mysql_query($query) or die ("Error in query: $query. " . mysql=
_error());
>=20
>=20
>=20
> // are there any rows in the result?
>=20
> if (mysql_num_rows($result) > 0)
>=20
> {
>=20
> // yes
>=20
> // iterate through result set
>=20
> // format query results as table
>=20
> echo "";
";
>=20
> while($row =3D mysql_fetch_assoc($result))
>=20
> {
>=20
> echo ""; ";
>=20
> echo "" . $row['member_id'] . " ";
>=20
> echo "" . $row['fname'] . " ";
>=20
> echo "
>=20
> }
>=20
> echo "
>=20
> }
>=20
> else
>=20
> {
>=20
> // no
>=20
> // print status message
>=20
> echo "NO rows found!";
>=20
> }
>=20
>=20
>=20
> // close connection
>=20
> mysql_close($connect);
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ?>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
>=20
>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Iâ=99ve got apache benchmark then running 5 concurrent connections 10=
,000 times. I changed the $host to the IP for the 5.5 server then to the 5.=
1 server and here are one of my many results:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 5.1 results:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Server Software: Apache/2.2.3
>=20
> Server Hostname: aramos.dev
>=20
> Server Port: 80
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Document Path: /mysqlfetch51.php
>=20
> Document Length: 35808 bytes
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Concurrency Level: 5
>=20
> Time taken for tests: 3263.909079 seconds
>=20
> Complete requests: 10000
>=20
> Failed requests: 0
>=20
> Write errors: 0
>=20
> Total transferred: 359640000 bytes
>=20
> HTML transferred: 358080000 bytes
>=20
> Requests per second: 3.06 [#/sec] (mean)
>=20
> Time per request: 1631.955 [ms] (mean)
>=20
> Time per request: 326.391 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests=
)
>=20
> Transfer rate: 107.60 [Kbytes/sec] received
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Connection Times (ms)
>=20
> min mean[+/-sd] median max
>=20
> Connect: 0 1 2.3 1 155
>=20
> Processing: 593 1629 699.7 1524 13580
>=20
> Waiting: 574 1611 699.7 1506 13562
>=20
> Total: 595 1630 699.7 1526 13580
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>=20
> 50% 1526
>=20
> 66% 1725
>=20
> 75% 1856
>=20
> 80% 1944
>=20
> 90% 2215
>=20
> 95% 2559
>=20
> 98% 4339
>=20
> 99% 4741
>=20
> 100% 13580 (longest request)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 5.5 results:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> erver Software: Apache/2.2.3
>=20
> Server Hostname: aramos.dev
>=20
> Server Port: 80
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Document Path: /mysqlfetch.php
>=20
> Document Length: 35808 bytes
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Concurrency Level: 5
>=20
> Time taken for tests: 3400.300474 seconds
>=20
> Complete requests: 10000
>=20
> Failed requests: 0
>=20
> Write errors: 0
>=20
> Total transferred: 359640000 bytes
>=20
> HTML transferred: 358080000 bytes
>=20
> Requests per second: 2.94 [#/sec] (mean)
>=20
> Time per request: 1700.150 [ms] (mean)
>=20
> Time per request: 340.030 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests=
)
>=20
> Transfer rate: 103.29 [Kbytes/sec] received
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Connection Times (ms)
>=20
> min mean[+/-sd] median max
>=20
> Connect: 0 1 2.7 1 168
>=20
> Processing: 595 1697 724.8 1598 14505
>=20
> Waiting: 577 1679 724.8 1580 14486
>=20
> Total: 596 1698 724.8 1600 14506
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>=20
> 50% 1600
>=20
> 66% 1799
>=20
> 75% 1939
>=20
> 80% 2028
>=20
> 90% 2314
>=20
> 95% 2640
>=20
> 98% 4387
>=20
> 99% 4805
>=20
> 100% 14506 (longest request)
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Iâ=99ve ran tests even against our web sites and its slower than the 5=
..1 server. Any suggestions, anything I should change on the 5.5 server? Th=
e hardware and OS is identical from the 5.1 server. Thanks!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Alvin Ramos
>=20
>=20
>=20
> From: wang@pythian.com [mailto:wang@pythian.com] On Behalf Of Singer X.J. W=
ang
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:08 PM
> To: Alvin Ramos
> Cc: Prabhat Kumar; Reindl Harald; mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Are you doing concurrent workloads?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:04, Alvin Ramos
ote:
>=20
> I've been running some bench marking between 5.1 and 5.5 myself and haven'=
t notice any huge performance improvements on 5.5. Even though white papers c=
laim it put performs 5.1. Any noticing the same or have some input in my fin=
dings?
>=20
> Regards,
> Alvin
>=20
>=20
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Prabhat Kumar
>=20
>> correct. you have to understand the problem first.
>> but still its recommendable to always use latest stable version.
>>=20
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Reindl Harald
rote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Am 16.08.2011 17:59, schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
>>>> as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
>>>>=20
>>>> my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
>>>>=20
>>>> right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?
>>>>=20
>>>> Regards,
>>>>=20
>>>> LD
>>>>=20
>>> why do you believe without any information you will get
>>> a useful answer? "i have a performance problem" is simply
>>> NO information if you even do not tell which storage engine
>>> and wich sort of problem in which context
>>>=20
>>> if you should update can nobody answer for you because we
>>> do not know if you have any crappy apps / scripts which
>>> would have troubles?
>>>=20
>>> we have upgraded some hundret webspaces and two dbmail-servers
>>> in februray becaus we know our self written applications and
>>> having test-environments, if you can do this can nobody say
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>>=20
>> Prabhat Kumar
>> MySQL DBA
>>=20
>> My Blog: http://adminlinux.blogspot.com
>> My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/profileprabhat
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dwang@singerwang.co=
m
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> The best compliment you could give Pythian for our service is a referral.
>=20
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dgcdmg-mysql-2@m.gmane.o rg
Thanks for the suggestions. I will change the tables to in innodb and change=
my php coding. Then I will revisit the benchmarking with hopefully improvin=
g results. Thanks again!
Regards,
Alvin
On Aug 16, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Johnny Withers
> This is a poor benchmark because the query never changes. Query cache take=
s over after first request.=20
>=20
> Sent from my iPad
>=20
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:28 PM, "Alvin Ramos"
ote:
>=20
>> I know my previous email was vague, it was sent via smartphone. Iâ=99=
ve got a simple PHP page pulling information from one of larger database tab=
les:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> PHP Code:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> // set server access variables
>>=20
>> $host =3D "127.0.0.1";
>>=20
>> $user =3D "web";
>>=20
>> $pass =3D "password";
>>=20
>> $db =3D "md ";
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> // open connections to database
>>=20
>> $connect =3D mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass) or die ("Unable to connec=
t!");
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> // select database to use
>>=20
>> mysql_select_db($db) or die ("Unable to select database!");
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> // create SQL query string
>>=20
>> $query =3D "SELECT * FROM members limit 1000";
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> //execute query and obtain result set
>>=20
>> $result =3D mysql_query($query) or die ("Error in query: $query. " . mysq=
l_error());
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> // are there any rows in the result?
>>=20
>> if (mysql_num_rows($result) > 0)
>>=20
>> {
>>=20
>> // yes
>>=20
>> // iterate through result set
>>=20
>> // format query results as table
>>=20
>> echo "";
";
>>=20
>> while($row =3D mysql_fetch_assoc($result))
>>=20
>> {
>>=20
>> echo ""; ";
>>=20
>> echo "" . $row['member_id'] . " ";
>>=20
>> echo "" . $row['fname'] . " ";
>>=20
>> echo "
>>=20
>> }
>>=20
>> echo "
>>=20
>> }
>>=20
>> else
>>=20
>> {
>>=20
>> // no
>>=20
>> // print status message
>>=20
>> echo "NO rows found!";
>>=20
>> }
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> // close connection
>>=20
>> mysql_close($connect);
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ?>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Iâ=99ve got apache benchmark then running 5 concurrent connections 1=
0,000 times. I changed the $host to the IP for the 5.5 server then to the 5=
..1 server and here are one of my many results:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> 5.1 results:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Server Software: Apache/2.2.3
>>=20
>> Server Hostname: aramos.dev
>>=20
>> Server Port: 80
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Document Path: /mysqlfetch51.php
>>=20
>> Document Length: 35808 bytes
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Concurrency Level: 5
>>=20
>> Time taken for tests: 3263.909079 seconds
>>=20
>> Complete requests: 10000
>>=20
>> Failed requests: 0
>>=20
>> Write errors: 0
>>=20
>> Total transferred: 359640000 bytes
>>=20
>> HTML transferred: 358080000 bytes
>>=20
>> Requests per second: 3.06 [#/sec] (mean)
>>=20
>> Time per request: 1631.955 [ms] (mean)
>>=20
>> Time per request: 326.391 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent request=
s)
>>=20
>> Transfer rate: 107.60 [Kbytes/sec] received
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Connection Times (ms)
>>=20
>> min mean[+/-sd] median max
>>=20
>> Connect: 0 1 2.3 1 155
>>=20
>> Processing: 593 1629 699.7 1524 13580
>>=20
>> Waiting: 574 1611 699.7 1506 13562
>>=20
>> Total: 595 1630 699.7 1526 13580
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>>=20
>> 50% 1526
>>=20
>> 66% 1725
>>=20
>> 75% 1856
>>=20
>> 80% 1944
>>=20
>> 90% 2215
>>=20
>> 95% 2559
>>=20
>> 98% 4339
>>=20
>> 99% 4741
>>=20
>> 100% 13580 (longest request)
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> 5.5 results:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> erver Software: Apache/2.2.3
>>=20
>> Server Hostname: aramos.dev
>>=20
>> Server Port: 80
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Document Path: /mysqlfetch.php
>>=20
>> Document Length: 35808 bytes
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Concurrency Level: 5
>>=20
>> Time taken for tests: 3400.300474 seconds
>>=20
>> Complete requests: 10000
>>=20
>> Failed requests: 0
>>=20
>> Write errors: 0
>>=20
>> Total transferred: 359640000 bytes
>>=20
>> HTML transferred: 358080000 bytes
>>=20
>> Requests per second: 2.94 [#/sec] (mean)
>>=20
>> Time per request: 1700.150 [ms] (mean)
>>=20
>> Time per request: 340.030 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent request=
s)
>>=20
>> Transfer rate: 103.29 [Kbytes/sec] received
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Connection Times (ms)
>>=20
>> min mean[+/-sd] median max
>>=20
>> Connect: 0 1 2.7 1 168
>>=20
>> Processing: 595 1697 724.8 1598 14505
>>=20
>> Waiting: 577 1679 724.8 1580 14486
>>=20
>> Total: 596 1698 724.8 1600 14506
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>>=20
>> 50% 1600
>>=20
>> 66% 1799
>>=20
>> 75% 1939
>>=20
>> 80% 2028
>>=20
>> 90% 2314
>>=20
>> 95% 2640
>>=20
>> 98% 4387
>>=20
>> 99% 4805
>>=20
>> 100% 14506 (longest request)
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Iâ=99ve ran tests even against our web sites and its slower than the=
5.1 server. Any suggestions, anything I should change on the 5.5 server? T=
he hardware and OS is identical from the 5.1 server. Thanks!
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Alvin Ramos
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> From: wang@pythian.com [mailto:wang@pythian.com] On Behalf Of Singer X.J.=
Wang
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:08 PM
>> To: Alvin Ramos
>> Cc: Prabhat Kumar; Reindl Harald; mysql@lists.mysql.com
>> Subject: Re: shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Are you doing concurrent workloads?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:04, Alvin Ramos
rote:
>>=20
>> I've been running some bench marking between 5.1 and 5.5 myself and haven=
't notice any huge performance improvements on 5.5. Even though white papers=
claim it put performs 5.1. Any noticing the same or have some input in my f=
indings?
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Alvin
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Prabhat Kumar
>>=20
>>> correct. you have to understand the problem first.
>>> but still its recommendable to always use latest stable version.
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Am 16.08.2011 17:59, schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
>>>>> as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
>>>>>=20
>>>>> my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> LD
>>>>>=20
>>>> why do you believe without any information you will get
>>>> a useful answer? "i have a performance problem" is simply
>>>> NO information if you even do not tell which storage engine
>>>> and wich sort of problem in which context
>>>>=20
>>>> if you should update can nobody answer for you because we
>>>> do not know if you have any crappy apps / scripts which
>>>> would have troubles?
>>>>=20
>>>> we have upgraded some hundret webspaces and two dbmail-servers
>>>> in februray becaus we know our self written applications and
>>>> having test-environments, if you can do this can nobody say
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>>=20
>>> Prabhat Kumar
>>> MySQL DBA
>>>=20
>>> My Blog: http://adminlinux.blogspot.com
>>> My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/profileprabhat
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> MySQL General Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dwang@singerwang.c=
om
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> The best compliment you could give Pythian for our service is a referral.=
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dalvin.ramos@reachs=
mart.com
>=20
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dgcdmg-mysql-2@m.gmane.o rg
--------------enig04CED965B4D866CB5034DD1D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
you are acting blindly
if would recommend that YOU stay at 5.1 and do not touch things
you do not understand as long we are speaking about production servers
why will you change to innodb?
you know about the differences (fulltext search..)?
you know that for most web-load MyISAM is faster?
you know that InnoDB in 5.5 is targeted to be as fast as MyISAM
and for you will not happen the wonder it outperforms it
on typical workloads
sorry, but you do not know anything about what you are doing and how
a database server works (the only explanation for what you are calling
a benchmark) and nobody is blindly changing storage-engines for
performance reasons
Am 17.08.2011 04:59, schrieb Alvin Ramos:
> Thanks for the suggestions. I will change the tables to in innodb=20
> and change my php coding. Then I will revisit the benchmarking with hop=
efully improving results. Thanks again!
>=20
> Regards,
> Alvin
>=20
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Johnny Withers
e:
>=20
>> This is a poor benchmark because the query never changes. Query cache =
takes over after first request.=20
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:28 PM, "Alvin Ramos"
>>
>>> I know my previous email was vague, it was sent via smartphone. I=E2=
ve got a simple PHP page pulling information from one of larger dat=
abase tables:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PHP Code:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // set server access variables
>>>
>>> $host =3D "127.0.0.1";
>>>
>>> $user =3D "web";
>>>
>>> $pass =3D "password";
>>>
>>> $db =3D "md ";
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // open connections to database
>>>
>>> $connect =3D mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass) or die ("Unable to co=
nnect!");
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // select database to use
>>>
>>> mysql_select_db($db) or die ("Unable to select database!");
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // create SQL query string
>>>
>>> $query =3D "SELECT * FROM members limit 1000";
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> //execute query and obtain result set
>>>
>>> $result =3D mysql_query($query) or die ("Error in query: $query. " . =
mysql_error());
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // are there any rows in the result?
>>>
>>> if (mysql_num_rows($result) > 0)
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> // yes
>>>
>>> // iterate through result set
>>>
>>> // format query results as table
>>>
>>> echo "";
";
>>>
>>> while($row =3D mysql_fetch_assoc($result))
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> echo ""; ";
>>>
>>> echo "" . $row['member_id'] . " ";
>>>
>>> echo "" . $row['fname'] . " ";
>>>
>>> echo "
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> echo "
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> else
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> // no
>>>
>>> // print status message
>>>
>>> echo "NO rows found!";
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // close connection
>>>
>>> mysql_close($connect);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Iâ=99ve got apache benchmark then running 5 concurrent connectio=
ns 10,000 times. I changed the $host to the IP for the 5.5 server then t=
o the 5.1 server and here are one of my many results:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.1 results:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Server Software: Apache/2.2.3
>>>
>>> Server Hostname: aramos.dev
>>>
>>> Server Port: 80
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Document Path: /mysqlfetch51.php
>>>
>>> Document Length: 35808 bytes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concurrency Level: 5
>>>
>>> Time taken for tests: 3263.909079 seconds
>>>
>>> Complete requests: 10000
>>>
>>> Failed requests: 0
>>>
>>> Write errors: 0
>>>
>>> Total transferred: 359640000 bytes
>>>
>>> HTML transferred: 358080000 bytes
>>>
>>> Requests per second: 3.06 [#/sec] (mean)
>>>
>>> Time per request: 1631.955 [ms] (mean)
>>>
>>> Time per request: 326.391 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent req=
uests)
>>>
>>> Transfer rate: 107.60 [Kbytes/sec] received
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Connection Times (ms)
>>>
>>> min mean[+/-sd] median max
>>>
>>> Connect: 0 1 2.3 1 155
>>>
>>> Processing: 593 1629 699.7 1524 13580
>>>
>>> Waiting: 574 1611 699.7 1506 13562
>>>
>>> Total: 595 1630 699.7 1526 13580
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>>>
>>> 50% 1526
>>>
>>> 66% 1725
>>>
>>> 75% 1856
>>>
>>> 80% 1944
>>>
>>> 90% 2215
>>>
>>> 95% 2559
>>>
>>> 98% 4339
>>>
>>> 99% 4741
>>>
>>> 100% 13580 (longest request)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.5 results:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> erver Software: Apache/2.2.3
>>>
>>> Server Hostname: aramos.dev
>>>
>>> Server Port: 80
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Document Path: /mysqlfetch.php
>>>
>>> Document Length: 35808 bytes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concurrency Level: 5
>>>
>>> Time taken for tests: 3400.300474 seconds
>>>
>>> Complete requests: 10000
>>>
>>> Failed requests: 0
>>>
>>> Write errors: 0
>>>
>>> Total transferred: 359640000 bytes
>>>
>>> HTML transferred: 358080000 bytes
>>>
>>> Requests per second: 2.94 [#/sec] (mean)
>>>
>>> Time per request: 1700.150 [ms] (mean)
>>>
>>> Time per request: 340.030 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent req=
uests)
>>>
>>> Transfer rate: 103.29 [Kbytes/sec] received
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Connection Times (ms)
>>>
>>> min mean[+/-sd] median max
>>>
>>> Connect: 0 1 2.7 1 168
>>>
>>> Processing: 595 1697 724.8 1598 14505
>>>
>>> Waiting: 577 1679 724.8 1580 14486
>>>
>>> Total: 596 1698 724.8 1600 14506
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>>>
>>> 50% 1600
>>>
>>> 66% 1799
>>>
>>> 75% 1939
>>>
>>> 80% 2028
>>>
>>> 90% 2314
>>>
>>> 95% 2640
>>>
>>> 98% 4387
>>>
>>> 99% 4805
>>>
>>> 100% 14506 (longest request)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Iâ=99ve ran tests even against our web sites and its slower than=
the 5.1 server. Any suggestions, anything I should change on the 5.5 se=
rver? The hardware and OS is identical from the 5.1 server. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alvin Ramos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: wang@pythian.com [mailto:wang@pythian.com] On Behalf Of Singer =
X.J. Wang
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:08 PM
>>> To: Alvin Ramos
>>> Cc: Prabhat Kumar; Reindl Harald; mysql@lists.mysql.com
>>> Subject: Re: shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you doing concurrent workloads?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:04, Alvin Ramos
>>>
>>> I've been running some bench marking between 5.1 and 5.5 myself and h=
aven't notice any huge performance improvements on 5.5. Even though white=
papers claim it put performs 5.1. Any noticing the same or have some inp=
ut in my findings?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alvin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Prabhat Kumar
ote:
>>>
>>>> correct. you have to understand the problem first.
>>>> but still its recommendable to always use latest stable version.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Reindl Harald
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 16.08.2011 17:59, schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
>>>>>> as far as my readings, they claim that 5.5 is the best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my question is, shall i jump from 5.1 to 5.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> right now i have a performance problem, would 5.5 help me in that?=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LD
>>>>>>
>>>>> why do you believe without any information you will get
>>>>> a useful answer? "i have a performance problem" is simply
>>>>> NO information if you even do not tell which storage engine
>>>>> and wich sort of problem in which context
>>>>>
>>>>> if you should update can nobody answer for you because we
>>>>> do not know if you have any crappy apps / scripts which
>>>>> would have troubles?
>>>>>
>>>>> we have upgraded some hundret webspaces and two dbmail-servers
>>>>> in februray becaus we know our self written applications and
>>>>> having test-environments, if you can do this can nobody say
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Prabhat Kumar
>>>> MySQL DBA
>>>>
>>>> My Blog: http://adminlinux.blogspot.com
>>>> My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/profileprabhat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> MySQL General Mailing List
>>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dwang@singerwa=
ng.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The best compliment you could give Pythian for our service is a refer=
ral.
>>>
>>
>> --=20
>> MySQL General Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dalvin.ramos@re=
achsmart.com
>>
>=20
--=20
Mit besten GrüÃen, Reindl Harald
the lounge interactive design GmbH
A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17
CTO / software-development / cms-solutions
p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40
icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/
http://www.thelounge.net/signature.asc.what.htm
--------------enig04CED965B4D866CB5034DD1D
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk5LaJsACgkQhmBjz394AnmR4wCgk5YEVkgF61LDsFgU7IdX Kvxz
hu0AoIG2zOobrfsRejV4KRTg9uT5AFZy
=bg0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig04CED965B4D866CB5034DD1D--