Over a million developers have joined DZone.
{{announcement.body}}
{{announcement.title}}

Clustrix benchmarks under tpcc-mysql workload

DZone's Guide to

Clustrix benchmarks under tpcc-mysql workload

· Performance Zone
Free Resource

Evolve your approach to Application Performance Monitoring by adopting five best practices that are outlined and explored in this e-book, brought to you in partnership with BMC.

I’ve been working with Clustrix team for long time on the evaluation of Clustrix product, and this is the report on performance characteristics of Clustrix under tpcc-mysql workload.

I tested tpcc 5000W (~500GB of data in InnoDB) on Clustrix systems with 3, 6, 9-nodes and also, to have base for comparison, ran the same workload on HP ProLiant DL380 G6 powered by Fusion-io card, and on SuperMicro server powered by 7 Intel SSD 320 cards (this server is equal to hardware that Clustrix uses for its nodes).

The full report is available on our page with whitepapers, and in this post I would like to highlight the most interesting points.

The chart with comparison of all systems ( results in throughput per 10 sec, more is better)

So my conclusions from this benchmark:

  • Clustrix shows very good scalability in the high concurrent workload by adding additional nodes.
    In fact the throughput improves more than by 2 times (3 times) by doubling (tripling) amount of nodes. This is possible Clustrix automatically distributes data around new nodes, and data/memory ratio decreases, which allows to achieve better throughput per node.
  • Clustrix is able to handle such complex workload as tpcc, and automatically distributes load between nodes despite multi-statements transactions and foreign key relations.
  • For a workload with a small number of threads, Clustrix does not perform as well as the system with Fusion-io cards.
  • We also should take into account that Clustrix automatically provides high availability, maintaining redundant information on each node. Other systems in comparison are not fault- or crash-tolerant.

So looking on the results, Clustrix might be not your first choice for single-thread or low concurrency workloads from the performance point of view, but consider other factors such as high availability and transparent auto-rebalancing out-of-the-box. For high concurrent workloads, Clustrix provides great performance, and if you need better throughput, just add more nodes.

The other factor which would be interesting to compare, but I did not do that in this research, is the total cost of system. I need to ask Clustrix how cost of 3,6,9 nodes system is compared to other systems in comparison.

Standard dislaimer: this post is part of paid evaluation we perform for Clustrix, but is totally independent and fully reflects our opinion.

Learn tips and best practices for optimizing your capacity management strategy with the Market Guide for Capacity Management, brought to you in partnership with BMC.

Topics:

Published at DZone with permission of Peter Zaitsev, DZone MVB. See the original article here.

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

THE DZONE NEWSLETTER

Dev Resources & Solutions Straight to Your Inbox

Thanks for subscribing!

Awesome! Check your inbox to verify your email so you can start receiving the latest in tech news and resources.

X

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}