Hi!
One option, we can look at just merging your work, and seeing if that
makes a difference.
I will pull the trees here in a bit, and redo the work minus Pandora.
Cheers,
-Brian
On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Padraig O'Sullivan wrote:
I'm not too sure what could be causing a regression in that patch. All
that is happening in the work I did is to remove some case labels from
the switch statement in mysql_execute_command() and replace them with
their own classes. The only other patch merged into revision 1126 of
the staging branch is Monty's pandora build stuff I believe.
While I agree that looking at those numbers it looks like a
regression, I'm not really convinced there is one. For example, I ran
the lp:drizzle/build branch through the regression system today (which
has the same stuff as lp:drizzle/staging) and these are the numbers I
got:
read-only
lp:drizzle/build-1126 2 1517.868000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 4 2663.328000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 8 4157.183000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 16 5674.173000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 32 5500.743000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 64 4889.671000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 128 4363.030000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 256 3825.326000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 512 2621.991000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 1024 1283.329000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 2048 623.358000
read/write
lp:drizzle/build-1126 2 696.863333
lp:drizzle/build-1126 4 1140.660000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 8 1660.763333
lp:drizzle/build-1126 16 2000.490000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 32 2151.023333
lp:drizzle/build-1126 64 1841.243333
lp:drizzle/build-1126 128 1660.250000
lp:drizzle/build-1126 256 1334.256667
lp:drizzle/build-1126 512 841.133333
lp:drizzle/build-1126 1024 819.710000
So it looks like at concurrency level 512, there still appears to be a
regression. Although I bet if we ran it through again, we would
probably see different numbers...
I was curious to see if my patch was causing a regression so I ran my
branch on its own through the regression system. This branch has the
entire switch statement in mysql_execute_command() removed so it
actually has more work done than the branch that was merged into
staging. Here are the numbers I got:
read-only
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 2 1544.278000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 4 2708.862000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 8 4137.718000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 16 5669.148000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 32 5475.368000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 64 4857.823000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 128 4291.008000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 256 3697.420000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 512 2049.596000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 1024 1011.149000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 2048 568.179000
read/write
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 2 751.633333
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 4 1156.610000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 8 1683.083333
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 16 2625.083333
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 32 2202.903333
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 64 1989.500000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 128 1726.480000
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 256 1462.993333
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 512 1440.783333
lp:~posulliv/drizzle/cleanup-exec-command-1168 1024 843.286667
As you can see, the numbers for read/write are pretty good at all
concurrency levels (including 512 and 1024). These large variances
(look at the spike for concurrency level 16 above) are making it
impossible for me to glean any information from these reports. It
makes no sense to me that the numbers for my branch would be so
different to the numbers obtained from running the staging branch.
So when I run my branch that is merged into staging on its own, the
numbers come out fine and show no regression. Any other ideas on what
could be causing a regression (if there definitely is one)?
-Padraig
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Lee Bieber<[email protected]> wrote:
I think we have a pretty serious regression with readwrite, take a
look at
this view of build 1125 vs 1126. 512 and 1024 connections seemed
to have
dropped off significantly. Any ideas what might have caused this?
.
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 2 1,512.89
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 2 1,523.13
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 4 2,679.88
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 4 2,689.73
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 8 4,137.83
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 8 4,142.85
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 16 5,624.94
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 16 5,663.29
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 32 5,443.96
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 32 5,592.64
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 64 4,822.81
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 64 4,922.61
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 128 4,226.14
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 128 4,330.35
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 256 3,767.20
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 256 3,646.06
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 512 2,576.44
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 512 2,030.83
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 1024 1,277.10
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 1024 1,002.95
1125 innodb_1000K_readonly 2048 566.67
1126 innodb_1000K_readonly 2048 632.28
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 2 693.22
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 2 706.97
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 4 1,118.15
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 4 1,138.10
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 8 1,577.70
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 8 2,024.12
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 16 2,056.66
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 16 2,061.63
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 32 2,203.37
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 32 2,111.02
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 64 1,851.07
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 64 1,955.83
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 128 1,665.41
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 128 1,742.90
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 256 1,336.60
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 256 1,442.81
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 512 1,433.94
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 512 729.27
1125 innodb_1000K_readwrite 1024 843.55
1126 innodb_1000K_readwrite 1024 714.69
Padraig O'Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Brian Aker<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi!
On Aug 26, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Padraig O'Sullivan wrote:
whether there is a regression or not due to the large variances
in the
Same here. Rerun the numbers? I'll kick off a job here in a
moment.
Cool. I've finished the patch where the entire switch statement in
mysql_execute_command() is gone. I've kicked off a job on that
branch
to see what kind of numbers I get from that.
-Padraig
Cheers,
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-benchmark
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-benchmark
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-benchmark
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-benchmark
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
