Personal blog of Yzmir Ramirez

Previously I tested Tokutek’s Fractal Trees (TokuMX & TokuMXse) as MongoDB storage engines – today let’s look into the MySQL area.

I am going to use modified LinkBench in a heavy IO-load.

I compared InnoDB without compression, InnoDB with 8k compression, TokuDB with quicklz compression.
Uncompressed datasize is 115GiB, and cachesize is 12GiB for InnoDB and 8GiB + 4GiB OS cache for TokuDB.

Important to note is that I used tokudb_fanout=128, which is only available in our latest Percona Server release.
I will write more on Fractal Tree internals and what does tokudb_fanout mean later. For now let’s just say it changes the shape of the fractal tree (comparing to default tokudb_fanout=16).

I am using two storage options:

• Intel P3600 PCIe SSD 1.6TB (marked as “i3600” on charts) – as a high end performance option
• Crucial M500 SATA SSD 900GB (marked as “M500” on charts) – as a low end SATA SSD

The full results and engine options are available here

Results on Crucial M500 (throughput, more is better)

Engine Throughput [ADD_LINK/10sec]
• InnoDB: 6029
• InnoDB 8K: 6911
• TokuDB: 14633

There TokuDB outperforms InnoDB almost two times, but also shows a great variance in results, which I correspond to a checkpoint activity.

Results on Intel P3600 (throughput, more is better)

• Engine Throughput [ADD_LINK/10sec]
• InnoDB: 27739
• InnoDB 8K: 9853
• TokuDB: 20594

To understand the reasoning why InnoDB shines on a fast storage let’s review IO usage by all engines.
Following chart shows Reads in KiB, that engines, in average, performs for a request from client.

Following chart shows Writes in KiB, that engines, in average, performs for a request from client.

There we can make interesting observations that TokuDB on average performs two times less writes than InnoDB, and this is what allows TokuDB to be better on slow storages. On a fast storage, where there is no performance penalty on many writes, InnoDB is able to get ahead, as InnoDB is still better in using CPUs.

Though, it worth remembering, that:

• On a fast expensive storage, TokuDB provides a better compression, which allows to store more data in limited capacity
• TokuDB still writes two time less than InnoDB, that mean twice longer lifetime for SSD (still expensive).

Also looking at the results, I can make the conclusion that InnoDB compression is inefficient in its implementation, as it is not able to get benefits: first, from doing less reads (well, it helps to get better than uncompressed InnoDB, but not much); and, second, from a fast storage.

The post InnoDB vs TokuDB in LinkBench benchmark appeared first on Percona Data Performance Blog.

An idea for a benchmark based on the “arrival request” rate that I wrote about in a post headlined “Introducing new type of benchmark” back in 2012 was implemented in Sysbench. However, Sysbench provides only a simple workload, so to be able to compare InnoDB with TokuDB, and later MongoDB with Percona TokuMX, I wanted to use more complicated scenarios. (Both TokuDB and TokuMX are part of Percona’s product line, in the case you missed Tokutek now part of the Percona family.)

Thanks to Facebook – they provide LinkBench, a benchmark that emulates the social graph database workload. I made modifications to LinkBench, which are available here: https://github.com/vadimtk/linkbenchX. The summary of modifications is

• Instead of generating events in a loop, we generate events with requestrate and send the event for execution to one of available Requester thread.
• At the start, we establish N (requesters) connections to database, which are idle by default, and just waiting for an incoming event to execute.
• The main output of the benchmark is 99% response time for ADD_LINK (INSERT + UPDATE request) and GET_LINKS_LIST (range SELECT request) operations.
• The related output is Concurrency, that is how many Requester threads are active during the time period.
• Ability to report stats frequently (5-10 sec interval); so we can see a trend and a stability of the result.

Also, I provide a Java package, ready to execute, so you do not need to compile from source code. It is available on the release page at https://github.com/vadimtk/linkbenchX/releases

So the main focus of the benchmark is the response time and its stability over time.

For an example, let’s see how TokuDB performs under different request rates (this was a quick run to demonstrate the benchmark abilities, not to provide numbers for TokuDB).

First graph is the 99% response time (in milliseconds), measured each 10 sec, for arrival rate 5000, 10000 and 15000 operations/sec:

or, to smooth spikes, the same graph, but with Log 10 scale for axe Y:

So there are two observations: the response time increases with an increase in the arrival rate (as it supposed to be), and there are periodical spikes in the response time.

And now we can graph Concurrency (how many Threads are busy working on requests)…

…with an explainable observation that more threads are needed to handle bigger arrival rates, and also during spikes all available 200 threads (it is configurable) become busy.

I am looking to adopt LinkBenchX to run an identical workload against MongoDB.
The current schema is simple

CREATE TABLE `linktable` (
  `id1` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `id2` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `link_type` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `visibility` tinyint(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `data` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `time` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `version` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (link_type, `id1`,`id2`),
  KEY `id1_type` (`id1`,`link_type`,`visibility`,`time`,`id2`,`version`,`data`)
) ENGINE=TokuDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
CREATE TABLE `counttable` (
  `id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `link_type` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `count` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `time` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `version` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`link_type`)
) ENGINE=TokuDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
CREATE TABLE `nodetable` (
  `id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `type` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `version` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `time` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `data` mediumtext NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY(`id`)
) ENGINE=TokuDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

I am open for suggestions as to what is the proper design of documents for MongoDB – please leave your recommendations in the comments.

The post LinkBenchX: benchmark based on arrival request rate appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.