[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[EP-tech] Antwort: IRStats2: Innodb tables; forks

Hi John,

we migrated our test system to InnoDB about a year ago, did some tuning
using the MySQL performance tuning primer script, and carried out some
performance tests with the Apache Benchmark tool on both the test and
production system.

Result: For sequential accesses, response times with InnoDB were 930-960
ms, with MyISAM they were 700ms. For concurrent accesses, response times
dropped to 250ms on average with InnoDB. But you need many concurrent
accesses to achieve this number. Also, when Web browsing, the InnoDB test
system felt sluggish compared to the MyISAM production system.
IRStats2 weekly update runs take about 10 hours on the MyISAM system, and
17 hours on the InnoDB system, although there are more updates to process
on the production system.  (I see that you have added transactions to
IRStats2 on GitHub, we will check whether this helps).

To bring InnoDB to fly, you would need a huge innodb_buffer_pool_size,
around the total size of your databases (which in our case is around 30-40
GB), requiring a hefty DB server.

Since we were not sure, in as much the current EPrints version supports
InnoDB transactions, we decided to stay with MyISAM on the production
system for the moment.



Von:	John Salter <J.Salter at leeds.ac.uk>
An:	"'eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk'" <eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Datum:	13/12/2016 12:59
Betreff:	[EP-tech] IRStats2: Innodb tables; forks
Gesendet von:	eprints-tech-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk

Our IRStats2 processing runs slowly, and I suspect there might be some
improvements to be made - especially as we're using InnoDB tables.
Before I start trying to work out how to solve this, has anyone done any
work in this area?

Also, there are two forks of IRStats2 that might need to be merged:

(Most other forks come from the head of eprints/irstats2).

Comparing these two forks:
it looks like there has been some re-arrangement of files (these seem
sensible to me), and a couple of fixes.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether these should be merged, so we have
one main master again? Will doing this cause problems for people who have
installed the package using the previous file-layout?

John*** Options:
*** Archive: http://www.eprints.org/tech.php/
*** EPrints community wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/
*** EPrints developers Forum: http://forum.eprints.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/eprints-tech/attachments/20161216/e97df5c9/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/eprints-tech/attachments/20161216/e97df5c9/attachment.gif