![]() ![]() There is some penalty of using innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1, but it is not significant. So I ran another round with innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1 to see what kind of penalty to expect. Now, all these results are received with innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=2, which in comments to previous post was called cheating. ![]() The variation of throughput with Intel SSD 910 is much bigger, though I am not totally sure what is the main contributor into that: the card of itself So I build a graph where throughput is shown every second: One thing to pay attention is a density of results. So gain is in 5-7x range, which is quite decent. I put number of median throughput, so we can estimate a performance gain. There is a jitter graph of Throughput taken every 10 sec: And we test it on two storages: HDD RAID10 and Intel SSD 910 Parameters to vary: we vary innodb_buffer_pool_size: 25, 50, 75GB to have different memory/data ration.Benchmark length: 2h for SSD, 4h for HDD RAID, but the result is taken only for last 1h to remove warm-up phase.MySQL Version: Percona Server 5.5.27-28.1.Intel SSD 910 (software RAID over 2x200GB devices) Benchmark goal: Test Intel SSD 910 under tpcc-mysql workload and compare with HDD RAID10. ![]() Now I want to test this card against RAID over spinning disks. I continue my benchmarks of Intel SSD 910, previous time I compared it with Fusion-io ioDrive. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |