…performance of the P320h on a standard TPCC-MySQL test to the original FusionIO and the Intel i910 with assorted buffer pool sizes:
And in this graph we look at the card's performance on sysbench OLTP:
It is worth noting here that EXT4 outperforms XFS by a fairly significant margin. The approximate raw numbers, in tabular format, are: - EXT4 XFS 13GiB BP 22000 7500 25GiB BP 17000 9000 50GiB BP 21000 11000 75GiB BP 25000 15000 100GiB BP 31000 19000 125GiB BP…
…extrapolate our growth to a number of app servers. On the database side we look at capacity (since we use FusionIO, capacity is a more important metric to us than IOPS) and estimate size/objects and # of objects.
NR: How many people are accessing your site on mobile devices and how do you optimize for that?
…database sharding . The gist is scaling up is working for them. RAM is getting cheaper and FusionIO is getting faster, so they've been able to avoid architecture complexifications like sharding. Does that makebased architectures a little more appealing?
much the same position , with a different stack, but with sympatico core ideas and comparable results. The learning: In your transaction oriented features, if you aren 't Googleish in …is in
We've grown enormously over the last three years but RAM keeps getting cheaper and FusionIO SSD 's keep getting faster. If anything, it seems like recent advances in SSD technology are accelerating and it's ever more unlikely that we'll need to shard Basecamp.
Basecamp remains a perfect candidate for sharding. Isolated accounts, no sharing between them. Yet the cost in increased complexity is constant while the cost of throwing hardware at the problem keeps dropping. …
I've got a FusionIO card with 720GB capacity on my hands.
It came with a HP ProLiant DL380 G6 server. Interesting that this card is not listed on FusionIO's products page , and neither I see such card in the list of available configurations on 's site. I guess this card comes as some customization option.
It seems to be acard (I did not hear about FusionIO cards with a capacity greater than 320GB) and cost is always an interesting question. …
When we publish the results of paid research, we disclose that we were paid to do it. Gifts, such as FusionIO's gift of hardware, follow the same rules. This transparency assures readers that when something isn't mentioned as paid research, then it wasn't paid for, and there is no puppetry behind the scenes. Examples of customers whose paid research resulted in a blog post or white paper are Virident and Tokutek. We try to ensure that our paid research is just as objective …
Performance and scalability improvements throughout the server and storage engine
Optimizations for cloud computing
Is this contention issue in FusionIO driver when we have 512 bytes IO ? It may be.
Also I am not sure what is strange hill on throughput line with 512 bytes, but it is quite repeatable.
My blind guess (but do not believe me, I have no proof) is that again something is going on inside FusionIO driver,
but this is topic for another research.
For history, FusionIO card information is
Found 1 ioDrive in this system
driver version: 2 . …
…Default is 512 bytes, in test with FusionIO I use 4096 bytes, to align IO with internal FusionIO size.
MySQL 5.5.8 now has features related to having several buffer pool instances that are supposed to fix the buffer pool scalability issue. Let's see how MySQL performance changes for the last workload if we set innodb_buffer_pool_instances …
* Also, looking at the graphs for Virident and comparing with the graphs for FusionIO, one might be tempted to say that Virident just has a lot of space reserved internally which is not exposed to the end user, and this is what they use to guarantee a high level of performance. I checked with Virident and they tell me that this is not the case. Actually from diagnostic info on Wiki page you can see: tachIOn0: 0×8000000000 bytes (512 GB), which I assume total installed memory. Regardless, …