Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Redis DB
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   8 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
karol  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 6:13 am
From: karol <karol.bre...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Mar 29 2012 6:13 am
Subject: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

I upgraded my Redis from 2.2.11 to 2.4.9 (Ubuntu 11.10, 64bit).
Some time ago I redis-benchmark'ed my old installation and now, out
of curiosity did the benchmark again.

LRANGE performace degraded significantly for me, i.e. LRANGE_600 test
showed decline from 21k to 11k
(all the numbers and details here: https://gist.github.com/2235525).

Is it to be expected? Is it Ubuntu not doing well here? Can I tune
something?

Regards,
karol


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Salvatore Sanfilippo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 7:29 am
From: Salvatore Sanfilippo <anti...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:29:25 +0200
Local: Thurs, Mar 29 2012 7:29 am
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hello Karol,

I think the problem is in redis-benchmark, not in the redis-server itself.
Please could you try with the same redis-benchmark to benchmark
against the two different versions of the server?

If the problem will be this as I suppose, I think this is done to the
fact that I upgraded the hiredis library lately in 2.4.x, however the
old function to set the "reader" methods to don't really parse the
reply from the client are now different and I don't know how to set
them to null. For sure Pieter Noordhuis knows how to do that ;)

Cheers,
Salvatore

--
Salvatore 'antirez' Sanfilippo
open source developer - VMware

http://invece.org
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act,
but a habit." -- Aristotele


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
karol  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 7:39 am
From: karol <karol.bre...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Mar 29 2012 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> Please could you try with the same redis-benchmark to benchmark
> against the two different versions of the server?

Thanks for the quick answer! I'll try to downgrade Redis on my laptop and
re-run the benchmarks again.

I'll keep You informed ;-)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
karol  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 9:02 am
From: karol <karol.bre...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Mar 29 2012 9:02 am
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Redis 2.2.11:
====== PING (inline) ======
149253.73 requests per second
====== PING ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== MSET (10 keys) ======
88495.58 requests per second
====== SET ======
156250.00 requests per second
====== GET ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== INCR ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== LPUSH ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== LPOP ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== SADD ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== SPOP ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== LPUSH (again, in order to bench LRANGE) ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== LRANGE (first 100 elements) ======
81967.21 requests per second
====== LRANGE (first 300 elements) ======
38022.81 requests per second
====== LRANGE (first 450 elements) ======
26809.65 requests per second
====== LRANGE (first 600 elements) ======
*21929.82 requests per second*

Redis 2.4.9
====== PING_INLINE ======
153846.16 requests per second
====== PING_BULK ======
172413.80 requests per second
====== SET ======
172413.80 requests per second
====== GET ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== INCR ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== LPUSH ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== LPOP ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== SADD ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== SPOP ======
172413.80 requests per second
====== LPUSH (needed to benchmark LRANGE) ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements) ======
65359.48 requests per second
====== LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements) ======
21321.96 requests per second
====== LRANGE_500 (first 450 elements) ======
12484.39 requests per second
====== LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements) ======
*12547.05 requests per second*
====== MSET (10 keys) ======
109890.11 requests per second

Hope this helps,
Karol


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Salvatore Sanfilippo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 9:08 am
From: Salvatore Sanfilippo <anti...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:08:12 +0200
Local: Thurs, Mar 29 2012 9:08 am
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Are you 100% sure you obtained this numbers using the *same*
redis-benchmark binary?

I tried it myself and can't reproduce (but I can reproduce if I use
2.2 benchmark with 2.2, and 2.4 benchmark with 2.4).

Thanks,
Salvatore

--
Salvatore 'antirez' Sanfilippo
open source developer - VMware

http://invece.org
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act,
but a habit." -- Aristotele


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
karol  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 9:47 am
From: karol <karol.bre...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Mar 29 2012 9:47 am
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> Are you 100% sure you obtained this numbers using the *same*
> redis-benchmark binary?

Oh, I was too hasty! :(
You right. I've used two different redis-benchmark binaries.
I'll do better next time. Just need some more preparation.

Karol


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
karol  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2012, 10:43 am
From: karol <karol.bre...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

What I did now is:
1. installed redis 2.4.9
2. copied redis-benchmark (redis-benchmark-2.4.9)
3. ran redis-benchmark.2.4.9 > 20409to20409.txt
4. unistalled redis
5. installed redis 2.2.11
6. ran redis-benchmark.2.4.9 > 20409to20211.txt
7. extracted the data

The results are:
2.4.9 redis-benchmark testing 2.4.9 redis-server
====== PING_INLINE ======
151515.16 requests per second
====== PING_BULK ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== SET ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== GET ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== INCR ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== LPUSH ======
181818.19 requests per second
====== LPOP ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== SADD ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== SPOP ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== LPUSH (needed to benchmark LRANGE) ======
181818.19 requests per second
====== LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements) ======
64935.07 requests per second
====== LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements) ======
22675.74 requests per second
====== LRANGE_500 (first 450 elements) ======
16233.77 requests per second
====== LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements) ======
12422.36 requests per second
====== MSET (10 keys) ======
86956.52 requests per second

2.4.9 redis-benchmark testing 2.2.11 redis-server
====== PING_INLINE ======
142857.14 requests per second
====== PING_BULK ======
172413.80 requests per second
====== SET ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== GET ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== INCR ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== LPUSH ======
181818.19 requests per second
====== LPOP ======
178571.42 requests per second
====== SADD ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== SPOP ======
175438.59 requests per second
====== LPUSH (needed to benchmark LRANGE) ======
181818.19 requests per second
====== LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements) ======
65789.48 requests per second
====== LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements) ======
23584.91 requests per second
====== LRANGE_500 (first 450 elements) ======
12547.05 requests per second
====== LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements) ======
10775.86 requests per second
====== MSET (10 keys) ======
92592.59 requests per second

Side by side figures comparison:
142857.14 requests per second 151515.16 requests per second
172413.80 requests per second 175438.59 requests per second
178571.42 requests per second 175438.59 requests per second
178571.42 requests per second 175438.59 requests per second
178571.42 requests per second 178571.42 requests per second
181818.19 requests per second 181818.19 requests per second
178571.42 requests per second 178571.42 requests per second
175438.59 requests per second 178571.42 requests per second
175438.59 requests per second 175438.59 requests per second
181818.19 requests per second 181818.19 requests per second
65789.48 requests per second 64935.07 requests per second
23584.91 requests per second 22675.74 requests per second
12547.05 requests per second 16233.77 requests per second
10775.86 requests per second 12422.36 requests per second
92592.59 requests per second 86956.52 requests per second


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Salvatore Sanfilippo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 30 2012, 6:36 am
From: Salvatore Sanfilippo <anti...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:36:53 +0200
Local: Fri, Mar 30 2012 6:36 am
Subject: Re: Did performance of LRANGE dropped in 2.4.9 (comparing to 2.2.11)
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Thank you Karol,

more or less they are comparable, I've the feeling most of the
difference is in the error of measurement of every run.
We improved a few things related to I/0 from 2.2 to 2.4, and other
improvements are in 2.6 as well, but sometimes it is a bit hard to
measure because we lack a proper speed testing / regression
environment.

Cheers,
Salvatore

--
Salvatore 'antirez' Sanfilippo
open source developer - VMware

http://invece.org
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act,
but a habit." -- Aristotele


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google