"old" vs "new" nodes comparison, Jan-Feb 2011
"Old" vs "new" nodes comparison, Jan-Feb 2011
1. HARDWARE
PARAMETER | OLD NODE | NEW NODE |
---|---|---|
CPU | ||
Type | 2 x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.06GHz +HT | Quad-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3450 @ 2.67GHz, +HT |
Cache Size | 512 KB | 8 MB |
Bogomips | 6110.44 / processor | 5319.95 / core |
Arch | 32 bit | 64 bit |
RAM | ||
Total | 3 GB | 8GB |
ECC Type | Multi-bit ECC | Multi-bit ECC |
Type | DDR | DDR3 |
Speed | 266 MHz | 1333 MHz |
Slots | 4 (4 max), 2x512, 2x1024 MB | 4 (6 max), 4 x 2048 MB |
DISKS | ||
HDD | 3 x SEAGATE Model: ST3146807LC | 3 x SEAGATE Model: ST3300657SS-H |
Size | 146.8 GB | 146.8 GB |
Cache | 8 MB | 16 MB |
Spin Rate | 10K RPM | 15K RPM |
RAID | Software RAID | Software RAID |
2. Database Performance: First Pass, mostly Synthetics + random STAR Jobs
Test results : - unconstrained *synthetic* test using SysBench shows that new nodes perform ~x10 times better than old ones (mostly due to x2 more ram available per core => larger mysql buffers, fs cache etc); - real bfc job tests (stress-test of 100 simultaneous jobs, random stream daqs) show performance similar to old nodes, with ~5% less time spent in db (rough estimation, only able to run that 100 jobs test twice today). Similar disk performance assumes similar db performance for those random streams, I guess.. - nightly tests do not seem to affect performance of those new nodes (negligible load vs. twice the normal load for old nodes).
PARAMETER | OLD NODE | NEW NODE |
---|---|---|
Temporary tables created on disk | 44% | 22% |
Sorts requiring temporary tables | 2% | 1% |
Table locks acquired immediately | 99% | 100% |
Average system load during "stream"test |
60-80 | 2.0-3.5 |
Average CPU consumption | 100% | 30-40% |
Groups:
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments