Benchmarks MySQL 4.0.18: Intel versus AMD

A Linux database server report would not be complete without the open source database MySQL. Many of our readers requested that we test with both MyISAM (default storage engine in MySQL 3.x) and InnoDB (default storage engine in MySQL 4.x), so we performed many more tests than last time.

It must be said that the MySQL results had a large margin of error (3% - 4%) compared to DB2, especially at high levels of concurrency.

Here is our MySQL configuration:

           Read_buffer=2GB
           Port=3306
           socket = /var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock
           skip-locking
           set-variable = max_user_connections= 2000
           set-variable = max_connections= 2000
           key_buffer=2G
           Read_buffer=2G
           table_cache=1024
           tmp_table=128M
           max_heap_table=256M
           read_rnd_buffer = 64M
           thread_cache=16
           net_buffer_length=16k

The " query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. In some cases, the query cache was able to push a single Xeon to 1000 queries per second, and the CPU was still capable of doing more, as the CPU load was at 50% - 70%. At 1000 queries/s and more, other bottlenecks started to kick in, such as the latency of the network driver, the operating system and so on.

All numbers are expressed in queries per second. All concurrency tests below 5 are not reliable enough to make any firm conclusion as the margin of error is much higher.

Concurrency Dual Xeon (Gallatin)
with L3 cache
Single Xeon (Gallatin)
with L3 cache
Dual Xeon (Nocona)
with HT
Single Xeon (Nocona)
with HT
Dual Xeon (Irwindale)
3.6GHz with HT
Dual Core Intel
3.2GHz
Dual Opteron 250
2.4Ghz
Single Opteron 250
2.4GHz
Single Opteron 252
2.6 GHz
1 243 248 280 277 286 233 290 298 319
2 357 317 423 338 450 344 438 370 399
5 466 356 473 358 497 442 543 435 470
10 505 361 521 375 517 487 629 465 502
20 496 350 531 371 545 507 670 455 498
35 508 355 555 371 506 490 665 470 507
50 497 348 526 368 495 502 669 472 508
                   
AVG 494 354 521 368 512 486 635 460 497
MAX 508 361 555 375 545 507 670 472 508

Those were the raw numbers. Let us now analyse this...

Concurrency Dual versus Single Xeon Galatin Dual versus Single Xeon Nocona/ Irwindale Dual Opteron 250 vs Single
1 -2% 1% -3%
2 12% 25% 18%
5 31% 32% 25%
10 40% 39% 35%
20 42% 43% 47%
35 43% 50% 41%
50 43% 43% 42%
       
AVG 40% 41% 38%

MySQL ISAM is an incredibly fast database engine in our benchmark situation: it handles the same workload about twice as fast as DB2. I have to emphasize "our benchmark situation" because we cannot forget that our workload is mainly about reading the database and not writing. And of course, it must be said that the MySQL ISAM engine does less work on each query than DB2; it does not support transaction-safe (ACID compliant) commit, rollback, and crash recovery capabilities.

MySQL, as we have also noticed 6 months ago, doesn't seem to scale as well as DB2. At best, you get a 40% - 45% performance increase when the concurrency level is high enough. When we move to quad CPUs, we only get a 20% - 30% increase while DB2 still offers a 70% increase. The better scaling of DB2 means that with enough CPUs, it runs almost as fast as the MySQL ISAM engine, and offers all the transaction-safe capabilities as a bonus.

Let us check if the architectural differences between the CPUs make a difference . Again, don't pay too much attention to the results of the lower concurrency levels.

Concurrency Dual Xeon Irwindale versus Nocona (3,6 GHz) Xeon Nocona (3,6 GHz) vs Galatin (3,06) Opteron 2.6 vs Nocona 3.6 Opteron 2.6 vs Pentium-D Xeon Nocona 3,6 GHz vs Pentium-D
1 2% 12% 15% 37% 19%
2 6% 7% 18% 16% -2%
5 5% 1% 31% 6% -19%
10 -1% 4% 34% 3% -23%
20 3% 6% 34% -2% -27%
35 -9% 5% 37% 4% -24%
50 -6% 6% 38% 1% -27%
           
AVG -2% 4% 35% 2% -24%
MAX -2% 4% 36% 0% -26%

The bigger L2-cache of the Xeon Irwindale did nothing more than compensate for the slightly higher latency of the L2-cache. The Xeon Irwindale and Nocona perform alike.

MySQL, unless you get the special Intel Compiler optimized version, remains the stronghold of the Opteron. The fastest (single core) Opteron outperforms the best Intel CPU by a 35% margin. We didn't use the Intel compiler version as we have reason to believe that this version is not used a lot in the real world. We might try it out in a future article.

The relatively limited scaling also means that high clocked single CPUs can be an interesting option. This is illustrated by the Opteron 252 2.6 GHz, which outperforms the dual core Pentium-D 3.2 GHz by a small margin.

Benchmark Configuration Benchmarks (continued)
POST A COMMENT

45 Comments

View All Comments

  • erwos - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    If they used RHEL4, this would be far more useful. SuSE's not quite a bit player, but let's face it: Red Hat is dominating the commercial space.

    -Erwos
    Reply
  • SunLord - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    Interesting benchmark though i would of prefered you used a postgresql instead of DB2 since it's also open source and is the most likely alternnative to mysql... a DB2/Oracle bench would be kinda cool... Reply
  • Son of a N00b - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    nice work guys! Reply
  • nserra - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    #6 "but very important: AMD, OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE WHAT INTEL IS DOING WITH PRICING ON DUAL CORES! don't get cought with pants down."

    Explain me something:

    - how do you explain or how Intel will explain that their single core processor cost more than the dual core ones?
    - Why should you buy a single core over a dual core if it cost more?
    - How good is this Intel market decision (marketing).

    I think is pretty logical to me that a dual core cost more than a single core processor so 4800+ more expansive than a 4000+ so it's OK! Stop blaming AMD, and their marketing team!
    Reply
  • Viditor - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    Calin - "Unfortunately, it seems that their dual core processors will be more expensive than Intel's"

    Actually, that's not true at all!
    The fact is that AMD haven't released a "Value Line" of dual core yet because they don't see a large enough market for it.
    By comparing the 2 companies offerings, it's apparent that the 820D should match up equvalently to a dual core Sempron when it's released, and the ($1000) 840EE matches up to the ($500) 4200+ rather nicely.
    The 4400+ and the 4800+ are in a class by themselves without competition at the moment, hence the prices are high.
    Reply
  • AlexWade - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    I like these real world benchmarks articles. Reply
  • snedzad - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    Again "Root me" wallpaper. Moron. Reply
  • Starglider - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    I would guess that the problem is the netburst architecture's fast integer units. As I recall, the P4 integer units are split into two 16-bit stages and run at double the main clock using complicated differential signaling logic. I seriously doubt it would be feasible for Intel to add another two stages or to double the width of the units, as they're already power and chip area hungry and pretty much integral to the design. AMD on the other hand designed the Opteron to be 64-bit from the ground up and is running at a lower clock speed, making 64-bit wide single stage logic much easier.

    Thus the authors speculation that the P4 is taking twice as many cycles to process 64-bit simple integer operations (while the Opteron needs no additional cycles) seems highly likely to me. I'm one of those (apparently) rare programmers that needs to use 64-bit integers a lot, so it's not surprising that all our compute servers are Opteron powered.
    Reply
  • Calin - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    I really hope AMD will get a share of the higher profit server processor market. Unfortunately, it seems that their dual core processors will be more expensive than Intel's Reply
  • ZalmanKalman - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link

    Wow, great and detailed artical. The punchline is so sweet to my ears. Vary sad to INTeL Fans, but I guess they buy, and will buy, intel b/c of corporate safty.

    but very important: AMD, OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE WHAT INTEL IS DOING WITH PRICING ON DUAL CORES! don't get cought with pants down.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now