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: [email protected]
To: brett skinner ; [email protected] ; 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 <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:54 +0200
To: Users<[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Try valgrind in linux.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "sangprabv" <[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "brett skinner" <[email protected]>; "kannel users"
<[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
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
