Oracle has now launched MySQL-5.6.10-GA, so it is time to come up with some new benchmark results. The test candidates in this benchmark run are

  • MySQL-5.5.29
  • MySQL-5.6.10
  • MariaDB-5.5.28a
  • MariaDB-10.0.1

The 5.5 versions are in because I wanted to check for any regressions. In the past we have often seen performance regressions in newer versions which were caused by new features.

This time the benchmark was run on a different box. The main difference is that this box does not have SSD but a high performance RAID-5 with 512M of battery-backed cache. Besides that the machine has 16 cores out of which 12 were used for mysqld and the other 4 for sysbench.

The benchmark uses sysbench-0.5 OLTP with 8 tables and 10G worth of data. InnoDB buffer pool was 16G, InnoDB log group capacity 4G (the maximum for MySQL-5.5). The different disk system required different InnoDB configuration:

  • innodb_io_capacity = 1000 (was 20000 for SSD)
  • innodb_flush_neighbors = 1 (was 0 for SSD)

Now for the results. OLTP read only comes first:

20130213-sb-ro-tps

And here is the first surprise: MySQL-5.6 behaves significantly different. It competes well up to 8 threads, it even wins 16 threads. But at higher concurrency performance drops off rapidly, even compared to MySQL-5.5. MariaDB-10.0 shows also a slight drop in performance compared to MariaDB-5.5, but it’s much less pronounced.

The response time graph is nice and smooth though:

20130213-sb-ro-rt

Both MySQL-5.6 and MariaDB-10.0 look a little better which means they distribute cpu cycles more evenly on concurrent requests.

Disclaimer: no thread pool was used in this benchmark. The Oracle implementation of the thread pool is closed source and thus cannot be benchmarked or used by anybody. It seemed a bit unfair to use the MariaDB thread pool under those cirumstances.

If you want to see the impact of the MariaDB thread pool, have a look at the benchmarks published previously:

Next stop: OLTP read/write:

20130213-sb-rw-tps

The picture is very similar. Both MySQL-5.6 and MariaDB-10.0 show a performance drop, compared to the 5.5 versions. For MySQL the drop is more than 10% and thus rather heavy.

However it’s a well known fact that MySQL-5.5 exhibits severe write stalls under high load when InnoDB starts synchronous flushing. The response time graph is good to spot this:

20130213-sb-rw-rt

This is the good news. While the 5.5 versions both show heavy write stalls at 64 threads and more, the behavior is much less pronounced with MySQL-5.6 and MariaDB-10.0. So it seems the new adaptive flushing algorithm is working well.

There is however one problem here: if you use multiple buffer pool instances, then you see write stalls more often. For the above results I have run the read-only tests with 16 buffer pools and the read-write tests with only 1.

Conclusions:

  • MySQL-5.6 shows a rather severe performance regression, especially at higher concurrency levels. This does not match the results published by Oracle. I can only speculate why the results are so different, but I guess it’s the (closed source) thread pool and maybe the fact that Oracle benchmarks were done on much bigger hardware.
  • with a single buffer pool you don’t have to be afraid of write stalls any more. Also MySQL-5.6 allows now up to 512G redo log capacity which further reduces the odds to run into synchronous flushing (MariaDB-5.5 lifted this limit with XtraDB already)

As always the scripts used for the benchmark as well as the results are available from launchpad:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ahel/maria/mariadb-benchmarks/revision/20

I invite anybody to rerun this benchmark and share the results.

  • Pingback: Оценка производительности MySQL и MariaDB. Выпуск MariaDB 10.0.1 | AllUNIX.ru — Всероссийский портал о UNIX-системах

  • http://wp-tutorial.de/ Wordpress Tutorial

    Thanks for sharing this really interesting article.

    I want to comment on your sentence:

    “but I guess it’s the (closed source) thread pool and maybe the fact that Oracle benchmarks were done on much bigger hardware.”

    Well, thats also my opinion. And I have to add that Software in general should be benchmarked, tested and developed on “casual”, e.g. end user – Hardware. MySQL runs on small VPS as on large Rootservers, but I guess the majority does not own these futuristic Oracle-testservers.

    What do you think? Thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/vbtechsupport GEORGE LIU
    • http://www.facebook.com/vladislav.vaintroub Vladislav Vaintroub

      George, Axel invited everyone to rerun the benchmark. I know you run your benchmarks too, so perhaps you can do it and then see if your results are more like Axels or more like Dimitris.

  • Andy

    What is the specs of the machine you used?

    When you wrote “16 cores” did you mean 16 CPU cores or 8 CPU cores each with 2 hyperthreads?

    • Axel Schwenke

      Hi Andy, the machine I used for testing has 8 real cores (two quad core Xeons) with hyperthreading enabled.

    • Axel

      @neorabbit:disqus
      the machine used for this benchmark has 8 physical cores and hyperthreading enabled.

  • dsms

    Could you also please run a benchmark MySQL Java Connector vs. Maria DB Java Connector?

    Thanks in advance!

  • Pingback: MySQL 5.6 | dasini.net - Journal d'un expert MySQL