MySQL 6.0, Libevent
« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 1st, 2008 | 11:30 am
Currently in the 6.0 tree we have support for Libevent. This is one of those things I've been wanting to see
us do for years and it was finally completed a few weeks ago by Damien
Katz (aka CouchDB) with some help from Dmitri Lenev.
So what does this do? MySQL uses a 1:1 ratio for connections and
threads. Libevent allows us to pull threads into pools and use them
for connections. This is pretty awesome for 8way machines since
partially solves thread contention issues. Below is an example of
MyISAM doing large number of inserts with the number of users doing
inserts increasing (1-300 users). The graph shows the time taken for
each test run. Similar numbers show up when you run benchmarks with
Innodb (leave concurrent set to zero as you should normally do, this
will allow libevent to more effectively control the thread usage).
The green line shows the test running with 20 threads, while the blue
is unlimited. I do not have good rules of thumb yet for thread number
vs processors. The machine I used for this test is an 8way that I have
on loan from Intel. I will work out a similar test for Solaris once I
can get the code to compile there.
Pretty awesome :)

us do for years and it was finally completed a few weeks ago by Damien
Katz (aka CouchDB) with some help from Dmitri Lenev.
So what does this do? MySQL uses a 1:1 ratio for connections and
threads. Libevent allows us to pull threads into pools and use them
for connections. This is pretty awesome for 8way machines since
partially solves thread contention issues. Below is an example of
MyISAM doing large number of inserts with the number of users doing
inserts increasing (1-300 users). The graph shows the time taken for
each test run. Similar numbers show up when you run benchmarks with
Innodb (leave concurrent set to zero as you should normally do, this
will allow libevent to more effectively control the thread usage).
The green line shows the test running with 20 threads, while the blue
is unlimited. I do not have good rules of thumb yet for thread number
vs processors. The machine I used for this test is an 8way that I have
on loan from Intel. I will work out a similar test for Solaris once I
can get the code to compile there.
Pretty awesome :)
(no subject)
from:
dormando
date: Jan. 1st, 2008 08:15 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Jan. 2nd, 2008 04:54 am (UTC)
Link
6.0 is as stable as 5.1 is. Avoid backup and any new engines and you will be fine.
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
dormando
date: Jan. 2nd, 2008 05:38 am (UTC)
Link
So you could say:
max_connections = 10000
max_active_connections = 100
... and 10,000 clients could connect, but the clients will queue if there're more than 100 queries in flight.
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Jan. 2nd, 2008 06:17 am (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
thread pool per user
from:
72squared
date: Jun. 25th, 2008 03:21 pm (UTC)
Link
Does that make sense?
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
jamesd
date: Jan. 2nd, 2008 04:09 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Jan. 2nd, 2008 06:22 pm (UTC)
Link
Not even using the SQL hints would work.
Perhaps if the user gave a hint in he way of a flag... or this could possibly be done with prepared statements (where the original cost could be stored and used for priority).
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
jamesd
date: Jan. 3rd, 2008 03:33 am (UTC)
Link
Still, definite progress being made here even if I immediately start thinking of other things that would be helpful... :)
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Jan. 3rd, 2008 03:47 am (UTC)
Link
I've pointed Kostja and Dmitri at your comments. Hopefully they will respond.
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
peter_zaitsev
date: Jan. 5th, 2008 06:03 pm (UTC)
Link
James brings one tricky issue - how do you make sure all slots are not busy by complex queries so small queries starve.
There are more tricky issues - for example how to maintain true concurrency - threads may well be stalled waiting on the row level locks, disk IO waits is another great example.
To implement it working for large number of cases much larger overhaul is needed having MySQL kernel to control concurrency so waiting threads allow someone else to run.
But this is surely great first step.
Reply | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Jan. 6th, 2008 12:29 am (UTC)
Link
Good start, but yes, it is going to need more to work in a way so that no one will shoot themselves in the foot.
Reply | Parent | Thread
w00t! can't wait!
from:
72squared
date: Feb. 28th, 2008 05:32 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Thread
Re: w00t! can't wait!
from:
krow
date: Feb. 29th, 2008 04:55 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
libev would be nice[r]
from:
rogerdpack
date: Jul. 5th, 2008 12:00 am (UTC)
Link
I haven't looked at the new code too much, but noticed that it might have one outstanding DB query per thread in the pool.
I assume this is pools running on the server itself? So it basically limits the totally max_actively_being_run_queries?
Will the client get any libev/libevent support? That would be sweet, and possibly allow for a single client thread to do multiple simultaneous queries to the database. If I'm understanding it correctly, anyway.
Client-side support that was this way might fit nicely in with my own work of single threaded web servers.[1]
Just thinking out loud.
Thanks for doing that stuff!
-R
[1] http://betterlogic.com/roger/?p=339
Reply | Thread
Re: libev would be nice[r]
from:
krow
date: Jul. 5th, 2008 12:04 am (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: libev would be nice[r]
from: anonymous
date: Mar. 30th, 2009 08:01 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: libev would be nice[r]
from:
krow
date: Mar. 30th, 2009 08:04 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread