![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4c4b3ab90f978bc3864acb2bd873b611.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Alex Yurchenko
And how about another killer case: what is the maximum number of parallel updates per second that you can make to a single row?
But of course, it is now well known, 1/RTT.
I guess this is true for Galera Cluster. MySQL with semi-sync can accept much more than that (not with the new default semi-sync mode from 5.7.2 though).
That's very curious. And semi-sync can do so while at the same time satisfying your requirement that the client finds the data even in the event of immediate master crash following OK?
What you are saying also implies that semi-sync can do more than 1/RTT transactions per second (if by "accept" we shall understand actual row modification, not mere queueing for lock). That refutes the findings of the tests I referred to, which to my knowledge so far have not been disputed by anybody. That makes it even more curious.
However your remark about 5.7.2 seems to smear this whole claim, and Oracle press release confirms that:
"MySQL 5.7.2 DMR also delivers lossless semi-synchronous replication, enabling transactions to only be committed to the storage engine and externalized on the master after the slave has acknowledged receipt."
This sounds like prior to 5.7.2 semi-sync isn't even that "semi-sync" as one would expect. So I'm not exactly sure how it can fit your requirements.
Answering to myself: indeed this can be done if transactions are committed on master asynchronously and only OK is sent to client after ACK from slave. But then semi-sync should be capable of more than 1/RTT transactions per second, yet somehow it is not what was found in any benchmark that I know of. So this is still a controversy I'm begging you to resolve.
It looks like during the conversation both of us have got completely confused with terminology and talked about different meanings of performance in different places. So let me try to bring that to a more sensible description. To be short I'll consider only three different aspects of performance: 1. Maximum steady rate of completely independent transactions measured long after the beginning of testing. For semi-sync this is limited to 1 per RTT to the closest node. The safe limit (the one when farthest nodes won't fall behind in replication) could be lower, but it depends mostly on network throughput to the farthest node (not on RTT). I don't know what are limiting factors in Galera for this situation, but I'm sure that with the right implementation of inter-node communication Galera can outperform semi-sync by a big margin here. 2. Maximum steady rate of dependent transactions (e.g. updates to a single row) measured long after the beginning of testing. For semi-sync this is the same as for previous one -- limited to 1 per RTT to the closest node. For Galera this is limited to 1 per RTT to the farthest node, so definitely worse than with semi-sync. 3. Sudden burst of parallel dependent transactions, i.e. what maximum number of updates to a single row can one perform in parallel in say 15 seconds (probably from hundreds of connections) if he didn't perform any transactions before that and won't perform any transactions after those 15 seconds. For semi-sync with rpl_semi_sync_master_wait_point = AFTER_COMMIT this is limited only to performance of a single node as if there was no replication at all (just writing of binlogs). For semi-sync with rpl_semi_sync_master_wait_point = AFTER_SYNC this is still limited to 1 per RTT to the closest node. For Galera this is still limited to 1 per RTT to the farthest node. So anyone who's reading this can make his own conclusions what tradeoffs he prefers to make for his production systems. Pavel