Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Message-ID: <7377491.120071291586111153.JavaMail.jira@thor>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:55:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Filipe Manana (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-976) Improve database read and write
 performance using 2 couch_files
In-Reply-To: <27129282.111321291489870762.JavaMail.jira@thor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12967029#action_12967029 ] 

Filipe Manana commented on COUCHDB-976:
---------------------------------------

Thanks.

A relaximation test for 2 minutes (instead of 5) helps out verifying the gains, since point samples are not so close to each other:

http://graphs.mikeal.couchone.com/#/graph/5c859b3e7d1b9bd0488cfe271104b99e

regards

> Improve database read and write performance using 2 couch_files
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-976
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-976
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Filipe Manana
>            Assignee: Filipe Manana
>
> Right now we use a single couch_file server for both updating a database and reading from a database.
> This is a contention point, as concurrent read/write access to a database implies having processes waiting for access to the couch_file server.
> The following patches add a couch_file server that is used only by the DB updater process and another couch_file meant to be used by anyone else only for read operations:
> https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/compare/updater_dedicated_fd
> Some performance measurements:
> # updater_fd vs trunk  (small docs, 1Kb each)
> $ node tests/compare_write_and_read.js --wclients 50 --rclients 200 \
>   -name1 updater_fd_small_docs -name2 trunk \
>   -url1 http://localhost:5984/ -url2 http://localhost:5985/ \
>   --duration 300
> http://graphs.mikeal.couchone.com/#/graph/5c859b3e7d1b9bd0488cfe271104a616
> # updater_fd vs trunk  (large docs, 100Kb each)
> $ node tests/compare_write_and_read.js --wclients 50 --rclients 200 \
>   -name1 updater_fd_large_docs -name2 trunk \
>   -url1 http://localhost:5984/ -url2 http://localhost:5985/ \
>   --duration 300 --doc large
> http://graphs.mikeal.couchone.com/#/graph/5c859b3e7d1b9bd0488cfe271104a7a7
> We can see that both the response time and throughput gets significantly better for both read and writes.
> If no objections I'll commit it to trunk.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.