MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Biping MENG<[email protected]> wrote:
Currently the size of pool of threads is fixed to 8 by default
(sysbenches on more than 8 cores platforms should produce nearly the same
results as 8 cores platform does; from 9th on, cores idle for most of the
time). But I think it really should be easy to set when starting drizzled
(like providing a option, say, --pool-size=XXX ), for the size has a quite
tight relationship with the number of CPU cores available which varies on
different machines. Thoughts?
Earlier threads about your work mentioned rescheduling threads on any
event that requires a long wait (IO, row lock, ...). Is that part of
your patch? For example, how does Drizzle with this patch behave when
the pool size is 8 and 8 sessions block in InnoDB on the auto
increment lock for a table?
I haven't taken a look at Bipeng's code yet (but I'm excited to :) ).
But, I should point out that Drizzle does not modify any storage engine;
we instead wait for the storage engine developers to improve their
plugins and we incorporate their changes almost immediately.
Not sure if you were asking if Bipeng has modified the InnoDB source
code or not. Just wanted to make sure it was clear where the "dividing
lines" are in Drizzle development :)
On a side note, the sysbench readwrite OLTP test does indeed use
autoincrement primary keys, and it looks like Bipeng is in the process
of running readwrite tests, so we should have some data on that shortly.
Cheers!
Jay
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
