Why don’t you try it on your own system. Test with a MyIsam table and with InnoDB.
It will be easy to determine which one works faster for you. == Rene From: users-boun...@kannel.org [mailto:users-boun...@kannel.org] On Behalf Of brett skinner Sent: Tuesday, 10 August, 2010 11:56 To: Alejandro Guerrieri Cc: Users Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking Thanks for your feedback. Guess it is the age old tao of computer science. Space vs Time, always space vs time. :) Regards, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Alejandro Guerrieri <alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com> wrote: Oh yes, I read that blog quite frequently :) There's a lot of stuff to say about optimizing InnoDB, but it's definitely off-topic here and wouldn't fit on a single email of course. We've gone thru a series of optimization cycles on our platform and, with respect to Kannel, ended up using MyIsam for DLR's. We don't have any locking issues, the only detail is we need to be careful when expiring old entries to do it in small batches and not on peak hours. For the rest of our applications, except for small and mostly read-only tables, we use InnoDB and while seems "slower" when you do a couple of requests, it's a _lot_ faster if you are under heavy traffic because of the row locking instead of table locking. Anyway, there's no a one-size-fits-all solution and if you really need to sustain heavy traffic I'd recommend you do a lot of profiling and find the bottlenecks either on the DB and the rest of your platform. Regards, Alex On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM, brett skinner <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Alex That is why I have chosen Innodb for the tables we use for the application that surround Kannel. MyISAM definitely beat Innodb out the box but Innodb does seem to be better in terms of the issues you have pointed out. The other thing that I have read is that Innodb is incredibly slow with the stock standard configuration. I read through the following blog and followed their advice which increased its performance quite drastically. http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/11/01/innodb-performance-optimization-basics/ If you have a moment you can give that a read. Or if you have any other good references please send them a long. I am still rather new to MySql. Thanks :) Regards, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Alejandro Guerrieri <alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com> wrote: Well, if it weren't for the SELECT COUNT(*) slowness would be my preferred option here as well. Despite seeming "slower" at first (specially on small tables) InnoDB performs row-locking on index-based queries, which indeed improves things quite a bit on big tables with lots of simultaneous reads and writes. Regards, Alex 2010/8/10 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com> Indeed. InnoDB is much slower overall compared to MyIsam. However, it has its use for some jobs (archive_logs, hot backups, etc.) The figures I gave were sustained rates simulated with a 10000-SMS batch. Count was sufficient to reach sustainability and reproducibility, yet short enough to get results fast. When i submitted fakesmpp, I also released similar data from a 64bit Solaris 10 server. BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com To: brett skinner ; users-boun...@kannel.org ; us...@kannel. us...@kannel. Org Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking Brett, The DLR engine uses SELECT COUNT(*) from the admin interface, which is painfully slow on InnoDB for moderately big tables. While InnoDB would theoretically be the best option, MyIsam performs quite better in this case. Regards, Alex BlackBerry de movistar, allν donde estιs estα tu oficin@ From: brett skinner <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com> Sender: users-boun...@kannel.org Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:54 +0200 To: Users<users@kannel.org> Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking Hi Nikos Thanks for the extra information. What was the motivation for using MyISAM? My reading lead me to believe that MyISAM was not that well suited for interleaved reads and writes due to table locking which is why I opted to use InnoDB. From what I assumed about how Kannel worked is that reading/writing to the DLR table would be interleaved. I may be quite badly mistaken and might perhaps need to switch to MyISAM as a few others have recommended. In your opinion what should Kannel be able to handle sustained (assuming normal business hours)? And what should Kannel be able to burst to? I know some of these questions are a bit like how long is a piece of string but I really do value all and any of your feedback. Regards, 2010/8/10 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com> Try valgrind in linux. BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: "sangprabv" <sangpr...@gmail.com> To: "Nikos Balkanas" <nbalka...@gmail.com> Cc: "brett skinner" <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com>; "kannel users" <users@kannel.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:35 AM Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking Yeah I understand that. But when the there is no traffic. Kannel doesn't release the cached or buffered memory it used. Do you have any solution? What command to list down or trace the memory usage by Kannel? So maybe we can investigate which function or module in Kannel is eating the memory. Thanks sangprabv sangpr...@gmail.com http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/ On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Nikos Balkanas wrote: No memory problems. It is reasonable that kannel will use more memory in higher traffic, since all queues are in memory, as long as it drops to nominal levels once the traffic is gone. BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: sangprabv To: brett skinner Cc: Nikos Balkanas ; kannel users Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 5:59 PM Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking Hi Nikos, Do you experience memory problem? In my case Kannel is eating the memory on high load traffics. I always need to restart the box to get more memory. I even give 3 on /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches but still Kannel eat the memory :( sangprabv sangpr...@gmail.com http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/ On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:42 PM, brett skinner wrote: Hi Nikos Out of curiosity can you go into more detail regarding what hardware you were running and your setup for MySql? Were you using Innodb or MyIsam. If you were using Innodb did you make any other configuration changes to MySql to accommodate Innodb. >From the user guide it is implied that the bottle neck for Kannel is the >number of messages that the SMSC can accommodate per second. Is this still the >case? Regards, 2010/8/8 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com> Hi, I have run some benchmarking for a client using fakesmpp. Using the default service for MO's I got: MO's: 1400 SMS/s MT + DLRs (internal): 747 SMS/s MT + DLRs (MySql): 434 SMS/s BR, Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: ha...@aeon.pk To: kannel users Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:22 PM Subject: Kannel performance benchmarking Hi, I am interested to know about the kannel performance benchmarking, especially in terms of speed (msgs/sec), MO or MT. I assume that multiple smsboxes does not have any effect over kannel performance, since the front-end talking to SMSC is the main bearerbox. What is the max speed that could be attained by kannel and/or bearerbox? Regards, Hamza
