Hi Huw, Great news!
I don't expect you to see any significant performance differences between 1.0.x and 1.1x however. Thanks for letting us know about your tests. best regards, On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Huw Selley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 8 Dec 2010, at 19:24, Filipe David Manana wrote: > >> Huw, >> >> Today trunk was patched to increase both read and write performance >> when there are several requests in parallel to the same database/view >> index file. > > Great news :) > >> >> The corresponding ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-980 >> >> Would be much appreciated if you could try the latest trunk and report back >> :) > > WOW - I built from svn rev 1043651 (again with Erlang R14B) this morning and > have just performed the same jmeter tests with some good results. > I am still seeing the same throughput score from jmeter, ~500 requests/s but > what is interesting is that I can now drive up the threadpool count in jmeter > from 25 (the value I had for my last round of testing) up to 750 with no > errors - just increased request latency (which is to be expected). > > Processor utilisation also looks more like I would expect: > > 09:16:43 AM CPU %user %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal > %idle intr/s > 09:16:48 AM all 19.82 0.00 9.19 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.00 > 70.70 6136.20 > 09:16:48 AM 0 43.80 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 51.20 1000.20 > 09:16:48 AM 1 38.40 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 > 40.20 460.80 > 09:16:48 AM 2 44.49 0.00 14.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 41.08 8.80 > 09:16:48 AM 3 36.87 0.00 24.05 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 > 38.68 449.80 > 09:16:48 AM 4 45.29 0.00 11.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 43.29 0.00 > 09:16:48 AM 5 40.68 0.00 24.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 34.67 1.60 > 09:16:48 AM 6 47.20 0.00 14.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 38.40 0.00 > 09:16:48 AM 7 13.00 0.00 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 76.60 0.00 > 09:16:48 AM 8 5.01 0.00 10.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 84.17 0.00 > 09:16:48 AM 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 > 99.60 455.40 > 09:16:48 AM 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 100.00 0.00 > 09:16:48 AM 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.00 > 99.40 482.60 > 09:16:48 AM 12 2.00 0.00 8.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 89.42 10.40 > 09:16:48 AM 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 > 99.60 488.80 > 09:16:48 AM 14 0.20 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 > 98.00 447.20 > 09:16:48 AM 15 0.60 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.20 1.20 0.00 > 97.20 2330.60 > > The box has HyperThreading enabled but the spread of load over cores looks a > lot more like what I would expect to see. > I retried this same test against 1.0.1 with a threadpool count of 750 and it > manages ~126 requests/s with a high error % (again, to be expected), Am yet > to retry against the 1.1.x branch build I was using as it was on the same box > the rev 1043651 build it on. > > I have also experimented with increasing the threadpool count against the rev > 1043651 build and I can go upto 950 threads with no errors (throughput drops > a little at that point). This is with a default couch configuration (only > change is delayed_commits=false). > > Also, I noticed your relaximation tool (which looks pretty awesome btw) from > reading COUCHDB-980 so if I get some time I might give that a run on this > hardware and see what pretty graphs it can generate :) > > So to summarise: All in all a massive performance win! > > Many thanks to both Adam and Filipe for all your help and advice. It's really > nice to see such that couch has such a vibrant community and I hope to be > able to contribute more in the future. > > Regards > Huw -- Filipe David Manana, [email protected], [email protected] "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
