ipng/ipng.ch
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Erratum: Tesseract/POSIX uses BadgerDB, not MariaDB, h/t alcutter@
All checks were successful
continuous-integration/drone/push Build is passing
Details

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Pim van Pelt
2025-08-26 09:19:41 +00:00
parent 26ae98d977
commit a1a98ad3c6
1 changed files with 4 additions and 3 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
content/articles/2025-08-10-ctlog-2.md
View File

@@ -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 * ***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), 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 * ***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 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 solutions, taking into account that TesseraCT runs BadgerDB, while Sunlight uses sqlite3,
for), while Sunlight uses sqlite3 on the ZFS pool. both are using their respective ZFS pool.
***Notable***: Sunlight POSIX and S3 performance is roughly identical (both handle about ***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 5'000/sec), while TesseraCT POSIX performance (12'000/s) is significantly better than its S3