Hey,

I thought I wrote this in the rest of the e-mail + the README: it doesn't
print stats at the end. you run the benchmark and then pull stats via
other utilities. Take a close look at what I wrote and the files in the
repo.

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, Martin Grigorov wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:06 PM dormando <dorma...@rydia.net> wrote:
>       memtier is trash. Check the README for mc-crusher, I just updated it a 
> bit
>       a day or two ago. Those numbers are incredibly low, I'd have to dig a
>       laptop out of the 90's to get something to perform that badly.
>
>       mc-crusher runs blindly and you use the other utilities that come with 
> it
>       to find command rates and sample the latency while the benchmark runs.
>       Almost all 3rd party memcached benchmarks end up benchmarking the
>       benchmark tool, not the server. I know mc-crusher doesn't make it very
>       obvious how to use though, sorry.
>
>
> What I miss to find so far is how to get the statistics after a run.
> For example, I run 
> ./mc-crusher --conf ./conf/asciiconf --ip 192.168.1.43 --port 12345 --timeout 
> 10
>  
> and the output is:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ip address default: 192.168.1.43
> port default: 12345
> id 0 for key send value ascii_get
> id 1 for key recv value blind_read
> id 5 for key conns value 50
> id 8 for key key_prefix value foobar
> id 26 for key key_prealloc value 0
> id 24 for key pipelines value 8
> id 0 for key send value ascii_set
> id 1 for key recv value blind_read
> id 5 for key conns value 10
> id 8 for key key_prefix value foobar
> id 26 for key key_prealloc value 0
> id 24 for key pipelines value 4
> id 19 for key stop_after value 200000
> id 3 for key usleep value 1000
> id 12 for key value_size value 10
> setting a timeout
> done initializing
> timed run complete
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And I see that the server is busy at that time.
> How to find out how many sets/gets/... were made ?
>
> Martin
>  
>
>       A really quick untuned test against my raspberry pi 3 nets 92,000
>       gets/sec. (mc-crusher running on a different machine). On a xeon machine
>       I can get tens of millions of ops/sec depending on the read/write ratio.
>
>       On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
>       > Hi
>       >
>       > I've made some local performance testing
>       >
>       > First I tried with https://github.com/memcached/mc-crusher but it 
> seems it doesn't calculate any statistics after the load runs.
>       >
>       > The results below are from 
> https://github.com/RedisLabs/memtier_benchmark
>       >
>       > 1) Text
>       > ./memtier_benchmark --server XYZ --port 12345 -P memcache_text
>       >
>       > ARM64 text
>       > 
> =========================================================================
>       > Type         Ops/sec     Hits/sec   Misses/sec      Latency       
> KB/sec
>       > 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       > Sets          985.28          ---          ---     20.02700        
> 67.22
>       > Gets         9842.00         0.00      9842.00     20.01900       
> 248.83
>       > Waits           0.00          ---          ---      0.00000          
> ---
>       > Totals      10827.28         0.00      9842.00     20.02000       
> 316.05
>       >
>       >
>       > X86 text
>       > 
> =========================================================================
>       > Type         Ops/sec     Hits/sec   Misses/sec      Latency       
> KB/sec
>       > 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       > Sets          931.04          ---          ---     20.06800        
> 63.52
>       > Gets         9300.21         0.00      9300.21     20.32600       
> 235.13
>       > Waits           0.00          ---          ---      0.00000          
> ---
>       > Totals      10231.26         0.00      9300.21     20.30200       
> 298.66
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       > 2) Binary
>       > ./memtier_benchmark --server XYZ --port 12345 -P memcache_binary
>       >
>       > ARM64 binary
>       > 
> =========================================================================
>       > Type         Ops/sec     Hits/sec   Misses/sec      Latency       
> KB/sec
>       > 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       > Sets          829.68          ---          ---     23.46500        
> 63.90
>       > Gets         8287.69         0.00      8287.69     23.56100       
> 314.75
>       > Waits           0.00          ---          ---      0.00000          
> ---
>       > Totals       9117.37         0.00      8287.69     23.55200       
> 378.65
>       >
>       > X86 binary
>       > 
> =========================================================================
>       > Type         Ops/sec     Hits/sec   Misses/sec      Latency       
> KB/sec
>       > 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       > Sets          829.32          ---          ---     23.63600        
> 63.87
>       > Gets         8284.10         0.00      8284.10     23.58600       
> 314.61
>       > Waits           0.00          ---          ---      0.00000          
> ---
>       > Totals       9113.42         0.00      8284.10     23.59100       
> 378.48 
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       > Text is faster on the ARM64. Binary is similar for both.
>       >
>       > The benchmarking tool runs on different machine than the ones running 
> Memcached:
>       >
>       > The ARM64 server has this spec:
>       >
>       > $ lscpu
>       > Architecture:        aarch64
>       > Byte Order:          Little Endian
>       > CPU(s):              4
>       > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-3
>       > Thread(s) per core:  1
>       > Core(s) per socket:  4
>       > Socket(s):           1
>       > NUMA node(s):        1
>       > Vendor ID:           0x48
>       > Model:               0
>       > Stepping:            0x1
>       > BogoMIPS:            200.00
>       > L1d cache:           64K
>       > L1i cache:           64K
>       > L2 cache:            512K
>       > L3 cache:            32768K
>       > NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-3
>       > Flags:               fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 
> atomics fphp asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm jscvt fcma dcpop asimddp asimdfhm
>       >
>       >
>       > The x64 one:
>       > Architecture:        x86_64
>       > CPU op-mode(s):      32-bit, 64-bit
>       > Byte Order:          Little Endian
>       > CPU(s):              4
>       > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-3
>       > Thread(s) per core:  2
>       > Core(s) per socket:  2
>       > Socket(s):           1
>       > NUMA node(s):        1
>       > Vendor ID:           GenuineIntel
>       > CPU family:          6
>       > Model:               85
>       > Model name:          Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6266C CPU @ 3.00GHz
>       > Stepping:            7
>       > CPU MHz:             3000.000
>       > BogoMIPS:            6000.00
>       > Hypervisor vendor:   KVM
>       > Virtualization type: full
>       > L1d cache:           32K
>       > L1i cache:           32K
>       > L2 cache:            1024K
>       > L3 cache:            30976K
>       > NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-3
>       > Flags:               fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr 
> pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx
>       pdpe1gb rdtscp lm
>       > constant_tsc rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc cpuid tsc_known_freq 
> pni pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt
>       > tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand hypervisor lahf_lm abm 
> 3dnowprefetch invpcid_single ssbd ibrs ibpb stibp ibrs_enhanced fsgsbase
>       tsc_adjust
>       > bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm mpx avx512f avx512dq rdseed 
> adx smap clflushopt clwb avx512cd avx512bw avx512vl xsaveopt xsavec
>       xgetbv1 arat
>       > avx512_vnni md_clear flush_l1d arch_capabilities
>       >
>       > Both with 16GB RAM.
>       >
>       >
>       > Regards,
>       > Martin
>       >
>       > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:23 AM Martin Grigorov 
> <martin.grigo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>       >       Hi Dormando,
>       >
>       > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:19 AM Martin Grigorov 
> <martin.grigo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>       >       Hi Dormando,
>       >
>       > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:15 PM dormando <dorma...@rydia.net> wrote:
>       >       Yo,
>       >
>       >       Just to add in: yes we support ARM64. Though my build test 
> platform is a
>       >       raspberry pi 3 and I haven't done any serious performance work. 
> packet.net
>       >       had an arm test platform program but I wasn't able to get time 
> to do any
>       >       work.
>       >
>       >       From what I hear it does seem to perform fine on high end ARM64 
> platforms,
>       >       I just can't do any specific perf work unless someone donates 
> hardware.
>       >
>       >
>       > I will talk with my managers!
>       > I think it should not be a problem to give you a SSH access to one of 
> our machines.
>       > What specs do you prefer ? CPU, disks, RAM, network, ...
>       > VM or bare metal ? 
>       > Preferred Linux flavor ?
>       >
>       > It would be good to compare it against whatever AMD64 instance you 
> have. Or I can also ask for two similar VMs - ARM64 and AMD64.
>       >
>       >
>       > My manager confirmed that we can give you access to an ARM64 machine. 
> VM would be easier to setup but bare metal is also possible.
>       > Please tell me the specs you prefer.
>       > We can give you access only temporarily though, i.e. we will have to 
> shut it down after you finish the testing, so it doesn't stay idle and
>       waste
>       > budget. Later if you need it we can allocate it again.
>       > Would this work for you ?
>       >
>       > Martin 
>       >  
>       >
>       >
>       > Martin
>       >  
>       >
>       >       -Dormando
>       >
>       >       On Fri, 6 Mar 2020, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>       >
>       >       > Hi Emilio,
>       >       >
>       >       > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Emilio Fernandes 
> <emilio.fernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>       >       >       Thank you for sharing your experience, Martin!
>       >       > I've played for few days with Memcached on our ARM64 test 
> servers and so far I also didn't face any issues.
>       >       >
>       >       > Do you know of any performance benchmarks of Memcached on 
> AMD64 and ARM64 ? Or at least of a performance test suite that I can
>       >       run myself ?
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >       > I am not aware of any public benchmark results for Memcached 
> on AMD64 vs ARM64.
>       >       > But quick search in Google returned these promising results:
>       >       > 1) https://github.com/memcached/mc-crusher
>       >       > 2) 
> https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/wiki/Memcached-Benchmark
>       >       > 3) https://github.com/RedisLabs/memtier_benchmark
>       >       > 4) http://www.lmdb.tech/bench/memcache/
>       >       >  
>       >       > I will try some of them next week and report back!
>       >       >
>       >       > Martin
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >       > Gracias!
>       >       > Emilio
>       >       >
>       >       > сряда, 4 март 2020 г., 16:30:37 UTC+2, Martin Grigorov написа:
>       >       >       Hello Emilio!
>       >       > Welcome to this community!
>       >       >
>       >       > I am a regular user of Memcached and I can say that it works 
> just fine for us on ARM64!
>       >       > We are still at early testing stage but so far so good!
>       >       >
>       >       > I like the idea to have this mentioned on the website!
>       >       > It will bring confidence to more users!
>       >       >
>       >       > Regards,
>       >       > Martin
>       >       >
>       >       > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:09 PM Emilio Fernandes 
> <emilio.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>       >       >       Hello Memcached community!
>       >       > I'd like to know whether ARM64 architecture is officially 
> supported ?
>       >       > I've seen that Memcached is being tested on ARM64 at Travis 
> but I do not see anything on the website or in GitHub Wiki
>       >       explicitly saying
>       >       > whether it is officially supported or not.
>       >       >
>       >       > Gracias!
>       >       > Emilio
>       >       >
>       >       > --
>       >       >
>       >       > ---
>       >       > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> Google Groups "memcached" group.
>       >       > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from 
> it, send an email to memc...@googlegroups.com.
>       >       > To view this discussion on the web visit
>       >       > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/bb39d899-643b-4901-8188-a11138c37b82%40googlegroups.com.
>       >       >
>       >       > --
>       >       >
>       >       > ---
>       >       > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> Google Groups "memcached" group.
>       >       > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from 
> it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>       >       > To view this discussion on the web visit
>       >       
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/568921e6-0e29-4830-94be-355d1dbdab26%40googlegroups.com.
>       >       >
>       >       > --
>       >       >
>       >       > ---
>       >       > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> Google Groups "memcached" group.
>       >       > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from 
> it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>       >       > To view this discussion on the web visit
>       >       > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/CAMomwMpu%2BOcwRBhzn7_PMLe9c6_sau-wNmMTyoBGhrL1L9XTBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >
>       >       --
>       >
>       >       ---
>       >       You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> Google Groups "memcached" group.
>       >       To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from 
> it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>       >       To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/alpine.DEB.2.21.2003061214140.25120%40dskull.
>       >
>       > --
>       >
>       > ---
>       > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "memcached" group.
>       > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>       > To view this discussion on the web visit
>       > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/CAMomwMqhBnOpyBf1JvEsdK2V0VGZkKH0D5OhxV9uS6-_%2B1AsyA%40mail.gmail.com.
>       >
>       >
>
>       --
>
>       ---
>       You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "memcached" group.
>       To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>       To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/alpine.DEB.2.21.2003191154040.6707%40dskull.
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "memcached" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/CAMomwMqoB_3vyUjr_4Yw8rTJMCkunROmLveuoSjeLUQtjVfjeA%40mail.gmail.com.
>
>

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"memcached" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memcached/alpine.DEB.2.21.2003221335200.6707%40dskull.

Reply via email to