From a1a98ad3c6ad3a18f8a01e11e53a5f3a75826bed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pim van Pelt Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:19:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Erratum: Tesseract/POSIX uses BadgerDB, not MariaDB, h/t alcutter@ --- content/articles/2025-08-10-ctlog-2.md | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/articles/2025-08-10-ctlog-2.md b/content/articles/2025-08-10-ctlog-2.md index 48ff2a5..4d4eb6a 100644 --- a/content/articles/2025-08-10-ctlog-2.md +++ b/content/articles/2025-08-10-ctlog-2.md @@ -621,12 +621,13 @@ to the task of serving the current write-load (which is about 250/s). * ***S3***: When using the S3 backend, TesseraCT became quite unhappy above 800/s while Sunlight went all the way up to 4'200/s and sent significantly less requests to MinIO (about 4x less), - while showing good telemetry on the use of S3 backends. + while showing good telemetry on the use of S3 backends. In this mode, TesseraCT uses MySQL (in + my case, MariaDB) which was not on the ZFS pool, but on the boot-disk. * ***POSIX***: When using normal filesystem, Sunlight seems to peak at 4'800/s while TesseraCT went all the way to 12'000/s. When doing so, Disk IO was quite similar between the two - solutions, taking into account that TesseraCT runs MariaDB (which my setup did not use ZFS - for), while Sunlight uses sqlite3 on the ZFS pool. + solutions, taking into account that TesseraCT runs BadgerDB, while Sunlight uses sqlite3, + both are using their respective ZFS pool. ***Notable***: Sunlight POSIX and S3 performance is roughly identical (both handle about 5'000/sec), while TesseraCT POSIX performance (12'000/s) is significantly better than its S3