Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have had no luck getting MySQL 5.5 to be as fast as 5.1 or MariaDB on the exact same hardware/database/environment under Windows server 2003R2 or 2008R2.

My benchmarks from our application:

MySQL 5.5 + CentOS 5.2 (XenServer Virtual) = 28 seconds (box is "busy" not buried)
MariaDB (5.1) + Windows 2003 (Physical box) = 130 seconds (box is 2% busy)
MySQL 5.1 + Windows 2003 (Physical box) = 170 seconds (box is 2% busy)
MySQL 5.5 + Windows 2003 (Physical box) = 305 seconds (As high as 600 seconds...) (box is 2% busy)

The only difference between these runs is the removal of skip-locking and the running of mysql_upgrade.exe to update some tables for stored procs on 5.5.

Yes, I know it's a release candidate, I'm feeding that back to MySQL as well.

No slow queries are logged, it doesn't think it's being slow, it just is.

I'm going to start tearing into the queries themselves to see if the INSERT/SELECT plans have gone buggo on 5.5.

share|improve this question
    
Why are you using a release candidate anyway? Are you planning to deploy with that? –  Matt Dec 1 '10 at 20:15
    
Testing to see how much faster/slower we will be on the new release and weeding out problems. –  Brad Dec 2 '10 at 18:47

1 Answer 1

Take a look at http://bugs.mysql.com/59133 . It could be flushing to disk most of the times (box is 2% busy is a strong hint for it) You might after careful consideration want to set a combination of

innodb_support_xa=0

innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 0 # or 2?

sync_binlog=0

and see what happens.

Once you get your load CPU-bound, then it makes sense to use Win2008R2, some improvements specifically address Vista+

share|improve this answer
    
That did the trick! We have MySQL on Windows a bit faster than Linux, but I'll call them equal because of testing variations. Those parameters have brought the 32bit platforms back up to snuff with the 64's until the load outstrips the lower end CPU's. Thanks!! Awesome! –  Brad Dec 27 '10 at 14:30

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.