[Beowulf] NFS over RDMA performance confusion

[Vincent Diepeveen]

On Sep 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:

>
> Prentice Bisbal
> Manager of Information Technology
> Rutgers Discovery Informatics Institute (RDI2)
> Rutgers University
> http://rdi2.rutgers.edu
>
>
> On 09/13/2012 10:45 AM, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/13/2012 09:23 AM, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/13/2012 08:52 AM, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>> the actual data goes through RDMA here and maybe through TCP  
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> mysql.
>>>>> I'm almost certain this isn't going through mysql, or this is an
>>>>> incredibly strange version of IOzone.  This is just "mimicking"
>>>>> database
>>>>> accesses by doing smallish record direct I/O.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I correct in my thinking here?
>>>> from email some time ago posted on this list:
>>>>
>>>> " Oracle and
>>>> Nexenta are both sending me ZFS based boxes to test and I hope to
>>>> compare
>>>> the performance and stability of these with the Netapp (formally  
>>>> lsi
>>>> engenio) E540"
>>>>
>>>> He got one or more machines from Oracle and the dude is  
>>>> benchmarking
>>>> MySQL...
>>>>
>>> Uhhh... Oracle owns MySQL.
>>>
>> As they wanted it to die of course and sell more Oracle databases.
>>
>> At the moment Oracle took over MySQL quite some years ago, i directly
>> switched to a different database and
>> threw away MySQL.
>>
>> The lastest incarnation of PostgresSQL is popular now as replacement
>> of MySQL.
>>
>> For serious database work - there is only Oracle of course.
>> No one should be interested in MySQL anymore by 2012.
>>
>> Note MySQL never was even remotely serious as a database. As soon as
>> you had its database go get out of RAM,
>> it became serious slow.
>
> This ridiculous claim confirms that you are completely out of touch  
> with
> reality. If MySQL "never was even remotely serious as a database", why
> is it one of the most widely used databases in the world?
>
> I think the other poster was right. The only thing of value you can
> bring to this list is your silence.
>
> --
> Prentice

Ah another big database experts comment...

So an old version of my chessprogram, actually one of the first,
from 90s that was shareware is more serious according to you
than todays top chess engines?

Just because it had a million or 20 copies downloaded / put on CD rom  
and todays top engines may
be happy if they're selling 500 versions?

Comeon grow up!

Oracle is the only serious database the rest is junk, yet if you want  
to do something simple on your website,
i bet anything will do. MySQL got popular because of that.

Yet for serious databases that are larger than your RAM, MySQL is  
notorious there of course. It'll ugh out.

Using top notch hardware in fact a whole big fast RAID array that can  
deliver 3GB/s, in fact hardware from Oracle,
just in order to toy with a database that works crap when its dataset  
is larger than RAM, that's the thing you should
wonder about.

You really can benchmark the raid arrays performance with that you  
know...

In fact you really need a raid array for MySQL...  ...it really helps  
its performance!
That's gonna be a very helpful benchmark!

As i can't afford another oracle licence and i needed pretty simple  
database functionality,
that's why the database i ran on a raid10 here, i moved it to  
Postgres (SQL).

Yet we shouldn't do now as if it's any better than the real thing...

Nor ignore the fact that close to 100% of the financial world runs on  
Oracle...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin  
> Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit  
> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf