[Maria-developers] PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA to be disabled in 10.0 (10.0.12)
Hi all, Recently there was chat about how PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA was enabled by mistake and it should be disabled in the 10.0 series. I'm curious - how many of you are using PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA? Is it a problem to turn it on, if you use it? I'm referring to: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6249 Looking from the webscalesql list, there are examples of performance degradation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/eUNsl0lSfbMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/-YZMMCuPw3QJ quote: "Our perf testing agrees with your assessment (we see about a 5%-6% perf hit when it's included and on, and a 2%-3% hit when it's included but off)" Please discuss this, either here or on MDEV-6249 Thanks cheers, -colin -- Colin Charles, Chief Evangelist, SkySQL - The MariaDB Company blog: http://bytebot.net/blog/| t: +6-012-204-3201 | Skype: colincharles
Hi, Never used it on production. From my point of view, it should be disabled by default, but included. The whole purpose of this variable is to have a way to analyze/optimize performances easily, when needed; if it's enable by default, we have a perf hit, so that's counterproductive. I assume it should be possible to work to remove the performance hit when disabled but included ? Thanks, Jocelyn Le 03/06/2014 10:20, Colin Charles a écrit :
Hi all,
Recently there was chat about how PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA was enabled by mistake and it should be disabled in the 10.0 series. I'm curious - how many of you are using PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA? Is it a problem to turn it on, if you use it?
I'm referring to: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6249
Looking from the webscalesql list, there are examples of performance degradation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/eUNsl0lSfbMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/-YZMMCuPw3QJ
quote: "Our perf testing agrees with your assessment (we see about a 5%-6% perf hit when it's included and on, and a 2%-3% hit when it's included but off)"
Please discuss this, either here or on MDEV-6249
Thanks
cheers, -colin
-- Colin Charles, Chief Evangelist, SkySQL - The MariaDB Company blog: http://bytebot.net/blog/| t: +6-012-204-3201 | Skype: colincharles
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile). On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Colin Charles <colin@mariadb.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Recently there was chat about how PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA was enabled by mistake and it should be disabled in the 10.0 series. I'm curious - how many of you are using PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA? Is it a problem to turn it on, if you use it?
I'm referring to: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6249
Looking from the webscalesql list, there are examples of performance degradation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/eUNsl0lSfbMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/-YZMMCuPw3QJ
quote: "Our perf testing agrees with your assessment (we see about a 5%-6% perf hit when it's included and on, and a 2%-3% hit when it's included but off)"
Please discuss this, either here or on MDEV-6249
Thanks
cheers, -colin
-- Colin Charles, Chief Evangelist, SkySQL - The MariaDB Company blog: http://bytebot.net/blog/| t: +6-012-204-3201 | Skype: colincharles
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
hum, maybe a "-debug" package and a "-production" package could be better if someone what a developer version get the -debug, for production use "-production" is it easy to create two kinds of packages at mariadb release time? 2014-06-03 14:10 GMT-03:00 Pavel Ivanov <pivanof@google.com>:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Colin Charles <colin@mariadb.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Recently there was chat about how PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA was enabled by mistake and it should be disabled in the 10.0 series. I'm curious - how many of you are using PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA? Is it a problem to turn it on, if you use it?
I'm referring to: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6249
Looking from the webscalesql list, there are examples of performance degradation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/eUNsl0lSfbMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/-YZMMCuPw3QJ
quote: "Our perf testing agrees with your assessment (we see about a 5%-6% perf hit when it's included and on, and a 2%-3% hit when it's included but off)"
Please discuss this, either here or on MDEV-6249
Thanks
cheers, -colin
-- Colin Charles, Chief Evangelist, SkySQL - The MariaDB Company blog: http://bytebot.net/blog/| t: +6-012-204-3201 | Skype: colincharles
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- Roberto Spadim SPAEmpresarial Eng. Automação e Controle
Hi, Pavel! On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
This is easy to fix. I'll change one of our builders (that doesn't do release packages) to compile without performance schema. Regards, Sergei
hi sergei, i think it's easy too maybe we could have some kind of servers, one for debug, one for production with instrumentations features and a clean server without intrumentations, just an idea, i think some time ago mysql was releasing mysql-dev, mysql-debug, mysql-xxx i'm wrong? 2014-06-03 14:50 GMT-03:00 Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org>:
Hi, Pavel!
On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
This is easy to fix. I'll change one of our builders (that doesn't do release packages) to compile without performance schema.
Regards, Sergei
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- Roberto Spadim SPAEmpresarial Eng. Automação e Controle
Hi, Roberto! On Jun 03, Roberto Spadim wrote:
hi sergei, i think it's easy too maybe we could have some kind of servers, one for debug, one for production with instrumentations features and a clean server without intrumentations, just an idea, i think some time ago mysql was releasing mysql-dev, mysql-debug, mysql-xxx i'm wrong?
Yes, it was. And it was confusing and we had to explain all the time what MySQL-max was and how it was different from simply "MySQL". I wouldn't want to repeat this experience. But in this particular case it is not necessary at all. As far as I understand, Pavel will compile his own binary anyway. The only issue is that MariaDB does not compile without performance schema at all. And it happens because we don't normally compile without performance schema, so when such a configuration breaks, we simply don't notice it. But now I've reconfigured one of the builders in buildbot to compile MariaDB without performance schema. And we'll immediately notice when it won't compile, so in the future we can be sure that MariaDB can be built without performance schema. Even if we won't release binaries that were built that way. Regards, Sergei
On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
This is easy to fix. I'll change one of our builders (that doesn't do release packages) to compile without performance schema.
nice :) no problem 2014-06-03 16:00 GMT-03:00 Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org>:
Hi, Roberto!
On Jun 03, Roberto Spadim wrote:
hi sergei, i think it's easy too maybe we could have some kind of servers, one for debug, one for production with instrumentations features and a clean server without intrumentations, just an idea, i think some time ago mysql was releasing mysql-dev, mysql-debug, mysql-xxx i'm wrong?
Yes, it was. And it was confusing and we had to explain all the time what MySQL-max was and how it was different from simply "MySQL". I wouldn't want to repeat this experience.
But in this particular case it is not necessary at all. As far as I understand, Pavel will compile his own binary anyway. The only issue is that MariaDB does not compile without performance schema at all. And it happens because we don't normally compile without performance schema, so when such a configuration breaks, we simply don't notice it.
But now I've reconfigured one of the builders in buildbot to compile MariaDB without performance schema. And we'll immediately notice when it won't compile, so in the future we can be sure that MariaDB can be built without performance schema. Even if we won't release binaries that were built that way.
Regards, Sergei
On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
This is easy to fix. I'll change one of our builders (that doesn't do release packages) to compile without performance schema.
-- Roberto Spadim SPAEmpresarial Eng. Automação e Controle
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> wrote:
Hi, Pavel!
On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
This is easy to fix. I'll change one of our builders (that doesn't do release packages) to compile without performance schema.
Thanks! A little off-topic, but please add also a builder that compiles without XtraDB (compiles only with InnoDB) and runs the whole test suite. There are problems in this area too (as in a couple of XtraDB-only tests are not skipped appropriately).
Hi, Pavel! On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> wrote:
On Jun 03, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
I personally would prefer if MariaDB had performance schema not compiled in by default. Then we wouldn't be frustrated every time we upgrade and find out that the tarball doesn't compile without performance schema (yes, 10.0.11 doesn't compile).
This is easy to fix. I'll change one of our builders (that doesn't do release packages) to compile without performance schema.
Thanks! A little off-topic, but please add also a builder that compiles without XtraDB (compiles only with InnoDB) and runs the whole test suite. There are problems in this area too (as in a couple of XtraDB-only tests are not skipped appropriately).
Unfortunately, we don't have that many spare builders. :( I did not *add* a new builder to compile without performance schema - instead, I took one of the builders we only use for testing and reconfigured it to build without P_S. But I don't see another builder like that - every other builder has a specific role, either as a package builder or it runs specific tests that no other builder does. Regards, Sergei
I don't use it in production, but this may change in the future. The problem is that I cannot enable it when I need it, if I don't want to restart the server. Regards Federico -------------------------------------------- El mar, 3/6/14, Colin Charles <colin@mariadb.org> escribió: Asunto: [Maria-discuss] PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA to be disabled in 10.0 (10.0.12) Para: "Maria Discuss" <maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net>, maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Fecha: martes, 3 de junio, 2014 10:20 Hi all, Recently there was chat about how PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA was enabled by mistake and it should be disabled in the 10.0 series. I'm curious - how many of you are using PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA? Is it a problem to turn it on, if you use it? I'm referring to: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6249 Looking from the webscalesql list, there are examples of performance degradation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/eUNsl0lSfbMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webscalesql/B-4bPIb8mHI/-YZMMCuPw3QJ quote: "Our perf testing agrees with your assessment (we see about a 5%-6% perf hit when it's included and on, and a 2%-3% hit when it's included but off)" Please discuss this, either here or on MDEV-6249 Thanks cheers, -colin -- Colin Charles, Chief Evangelist, SkySQL - The MariaDB Company blog: http://bytebot.net/blog/| t: +6-012-204-3201 | Skype: colincharles _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
participants (6)
-
Colin Charles -
Federico Razzoli -
Jocelyn Fournier -
Pavel Ivanov -
Roberto Spadim -
Sergei Golubchik