<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Guyub - Konsultan F/OSS &#187; innodb</title>
	<atom:link href="http://guyub.co.id/tag/innodb/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://guyub.co.id</link>
	<description>GNU/Linux - Java, PHP, Ruby - MySQL, PostgreSQL</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:11:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Rilis Perdana Keuangan Guyub versi KG-20100512-1</title>
		<link>http://guyub.co.id/rilis-perdana-keuangan-guyub-versi-kg-20100512-1/</link>
		<comments>http://guyub.co.id/rilis-perdana-keuangan-guyub-versi-kg-20100512-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 23:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aplikasi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[F/OSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GNU/Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guyub]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sindikasi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[codeigniter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innodb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keuangan guyub]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysql]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[php]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ukm jasa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://guyub.co.id/rilis-perdana-keuangan-guyub-versi-kg-20100512-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dengan mengucap Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
Hari ini 12 Mei 2010, kami merilis versi perdana dari Keuangan Guyub &#8211; Aplikasi Keuangan Open Source untuk UKM Jasa.
Bagi teman-teman yang tertarik mencoba bisa download langsung versi perdana di http://keuangan-guyub.googlecode.com/files/KG-20100512-1.zip.
Untuk cara instalasi oleh bisa dilihat di http://code.google.com/p/keuangan-guyub/wiki/PanduanSingkatInstalasi.
Petunjuk penggunaan bisa di download di http://keuangan-guyub.googlecode.com/files/DokumentasiPengguna-KG-20100512-1.pdf.
Dan kami juga sangat mengharapkan saran, masukan, kritikan dan kontribusi [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://keuangan.guyub.co.id/2010/rilis-perdanan-keuangan-guyub-versi-kg-20100512-1/">Dengan mengucap Bismillahirrahmanirrahim<br />
Hari ini 12 Mei 2010, kami merilis versi perdana dari Keuangan Guyub &#8211; Aplikasi Keuangan Open Source untuk UKM Jasa.<br />
Bagi teman-teman yang tertarik mencoba bisa download langsung versi perdana di http://keuangan-guyub.googlecode.com/files/KG-20100512-1.zip.<br />
Untuk cara instalasi oleh bisa dilihat di http://code.google.com/p/keuangan-guyub/wiki/PanduanSingkatInstalasi.<br />
Petunjuk penggunaan bisa di download di http://keuangan-guyub.googlecode.com/files/DokumentasiPengguna-KG-20100512-1.pdf.<br />
Dan kami juga sangat mengharapkan saran, masukan, kritikan dan kontribusi [...]</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://guyub.co.id/rilis-perdana-keuangan-guyub-versi-kg-20100512-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>innodb_file_per_table</title>
		<link>http://guyub.co.id/innodb_file_per_table/</link>
		<comments>http://guyub.co.id/innodb_file_per_table/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Basisdata]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sindikasi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innodb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysql]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://guyub.co.id/innodb_file_per_table/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently I attempted to use this parameter in one of our InnoDB table and had an experience to make a note of. So this is what actually happened.As we know InnoDB writes all the table information into one tablespace file ibdata1.Obviously this lead to a disk space issue, since the ibdata1 file grew to 90G+ [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://umangg.blogspot.com/2010/02/innodbfilepertable.html">Recently I attempted to use this parameter in one of our InnoDB table and had an experience to make a note of. So this is what actually happened.As we know InnoDB writes all the table information into one tablespace file ibdata1.Obviously this lead to a disk space issue, since the ibdata1 file grew to 90G+ and it was not possible to defragment tablespace using the Alter method (Infact is is hardly possible to do in a production environment, since it leads to a huge downtime.)So I decided to go for innodb_file_per_table on our other production database server which was being configured from scratch.Now this database had around 15 tables and it had very high inserts/deletes/updates. For few days, things went ok. But in few days, I started getting complains from development team regarding performance on the tables and queue being backed up. Apparently whenever a delete / update was made on a table, all the other tables slow down and queries started taking more than 4 to 5 secs to complete.Dug around, ran some more optimisations , flush tables but not much difference. I was able to get 660 to 661 qps tops.On digging further and discussing with developers, we figured out that innodb_file_per_table is the culprit.InnoDB uses fsync() instead of fdatasync() to flush both data and log files on non-Windows system. fdatasync() is like fsync(), except it flushes only files data, not its metadata (last modified time etc.). Therefor fsync() can cause more IO. innodb_file_per_table causes each file to be fsync()ed separately which means writes to multiple tables can&#8217;t be combined into a single IO operation. This requires InnoDB to perform higher total number of fsync() operations, leading to a IO contention in my case. Finally we had to migrate the database to another machine without innodb_file_per_table since it is also not possible to undo the existing tables for which files are created per table.As quoted in MySQL documentation : The  &#8211;innodb_file_per_table option affects only table creation, not access to existing tables. If you start the server with this option, new tables are created using .ibd files, but you can still access tables that exist in the shared tablespace. If you start the server without this option, new tables are created in the shared tablespace, but you can still access any tables that were created using multiple tablespaces.Once we migrated the performance started going up , almost upto 1500 qps.So moral of the story : Better test the  parameter  innodb_file_per_table  in a test environment, with the load higher than expected on production. I have read many blogs and many people are benefited by the use of this parametere, but as a general practice I would not favor its use. Sure it can be useful to reclaim some disk space, but I dont think it would be worth at the cost of performance. </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://guyub.co.id/innodb_file_per_table/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>InnoDB, InnoDB-plugin vs XtraDB on fast storage</title>
		<link>http://guyub.co.id/innodb-innodb-plugin-vs-xtradb-on-fast-storage/</link>
		<comments>http://guyub.co.id/innodb-innodb-plugin-vs-xtradb-on-fast-storage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Basisdata]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sindikasi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innodb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innodb-plugin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysql]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[xtradb]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://guyub.co.id/innodb-innodb-plugin-vs-xtradb-on-fast-storage/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To continue fun with FusionIO cards, I wanted to check how MySQL / InnoDB performs here. For benchmark I took MySQL 5.1.42 with built-in InnoDB, InnoDB-plugin 1.0.6, and XtraDB 1.0.6-9 ( InnoDB with Percona patches).
As benchmark engine I used tpcc-mysql with 1000 warehouses ( which gives around 90GB of data + indexes) on my workhourse [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/01/13/innodb-innodb-plugin-vs-xtradb-on-fast-storage/">To continue fun with FusionIO cards, I wanted to check how MySQL / InnoDB performs here. For benchmark I took MySQL 5.1.42 with built-in InnoDB, InnoDB-plugin 1.0.6, and XtraDB 1.0.6-9 ( InnoDB with Percona patches).<br />
As benchmark engine I used tpcc-mysql with 1000 warehouses ( which gives around 90GB of data + indexes) on my workhourse Dell PowerEdge R900 ( details about box ).<br />
On storage configuration: FusionIO 160GB SLC and 320GB MLC cards are configured in software RAID0 to store InnoDB datafiles. For InnoDB logs and system tablespace I used  partition on regular RAID10 with regular hard drives, here I followed Yoshinori Matsunobu#8217;s recommendations http://yoshinorimatsunobu.blogspot.com/2009/05/tables-on-ssd-redobinlogsystem.html and taking fact that FusionIO is not perfect for sequential writes http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/01/11/fusionio-320gb-mlc-benchmarks/<br />
Full results I put on page http://www.percona.com/docs/wiki/benchmark:fusionio:mysql:start, here are my thoughts and interesting facts.<br />
First, chart with results for InnoDB vs InnoDB-plugin during runs (values are in new order transactions per minute, more is better) :</p>
<p>As you see InnoDB-plugin is doing much better here, it allows to utilize multiple IO threads,<br />
which as we saw ( http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/01/11/fusionio-320gb-mlc-benchmarks/ ) is necessary to get most throughput from FusionIO.<br />
Also you may see from graph some waves for InnoDB-plugin.  Here we observe innodb_adaptive_flushing in action (which is ON by default), and I think innodb_adaptive_flushing in InnoDB-plugin is not quite balanced, it may do overaggressive flushing, when it is not necessary.<br />
But looking on CPU stats (see graph later), I guess InnoDB-plugin spends most time in buffer_pool mutex, contention here is not fully resolved yet in InnoDB-plugin.<br />
Now, let#8217;s take XtraDB. In additional to multiple IO threads, we have patch to decrease contention on buffer_pool mutex, plus separate purge thread. Also we use different adaptive_checkpoint algorithm.<br />
The results are:</p>
<p>So I guess buffer_pool improvements play here for XtraDB, and looking on summary result:</p>
<p>InnoDB 9439.316 NOTPM<br />
InnoDB-plugin-1.0.6 15299.333 NOTPM<br />
XtraDB-1.0.6-9 26160.551 NOTPM</p>
<p>InnoDB-plugin is 1.6x times better InnoDB, and XtraDB is 1.7x times better InnoDB-plugin.<br />
Now on CPU usage and disk utilization.<br />
Disk throughput:</p>
<p>CPU (user) usage:</p>
<p>Even with improvements, XtraDB performs less 150MB/s in disk writes (from benchmarks we<br />
saw FusionIO can do much more) and with 45-50% of idle CPU.<br />
I assume we still see significant contentions inside XtraDB, and there big room for improvements. As for InnoDB-plugin, I#8217;d wish InnoDB team makes some actions on buffer_pool mutex problem.<br />
Finally I wanted to check what if we put innodb transactional logs and system tablespace on FusionIO also, there is graph for that:</p>
<p>It is not so bad, with final result 23038.283 NOTPM, it is only about 12% worse than with logs on separate partition.<br />
And to make reference point, I run the same but with all files on RAID10 with regular disks,<br />
the graph is there:</p>
<p> with final result:   2873.783 NOTPM ( about 88% worse than all files on FusionIO)<br />
To summarize </p>
<p> MySQL InnoDB/InnoDB-plugin/XtraDB is not fully able to utilize  throughput of FusionIO. XtraDB is doing better job with internal contention, but much more can be done.<br />
Still you can have very impressive performance improvement in IO-intensive or IO-bound workloads. You may want to use InnoDB-plugin or XtraDB to get better results.</p>
<p>Putting logs on separate partition may be good idea, but only if you have possibility to do that. Making special setup for that may be not worth improvements</p>
<p>    Entry posted by Vadim |<br />
      No comment<br />
    Add to:  |  |  |  | </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://guyub.co.id/innodb-innodb-plugin-vs-xtradb-on-fast-storage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
