HandlerSocket plugin for MySQL - Replacement for memcache?

We encourage users to post events happening in the community to the community events group on https://www.drupal.org.
mikeytown2's picture
Posted by mikeytown2 on December 16, 2010 at 1:53am

interesting benchmarks

                           approx qps     server CPU util
MySQL via SQL                105,000      %us 60%  %sy 28%
memcached                    420,000      %us  8%  %sy 88%
MySQL via HandlerSocket      750,000      %us 45%  %sy 53%

http://yoshinorimatsunobu.blogspot.com/2010/10/using-mysql-as-nosql-stor...

Verification of benchmarks
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/11/02/handlersocket-on-ssd/

Percona Server now both SQL and NOSQL
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/12/14/percona-server-now-both-s...

Various PHP libraries via https://github.com/ahiguti/HandlerSocket-Plugin-for-MySQL
- PHP
http://openpear.org/package/Net_HandlerSocket
http://github.com/tz-lom/HSPHP
http://code.google.com/p/php-handlersocket/



Anyway this seems like a major win. All the bits are in place for this to be used. Nice thing about HandlerSocket is it gets around some of the limitations of memcache; if it doesn't work then just use normal SQL commands.

Thoughts/Ideas?

Comments

I like the percona server.

Posted by bennos on December 16, 2010 at 2:21am
bennos's picture

I like the percona server. Great performance after some tuning, better the standard mysql.

Percona NoSQL Feature could be a great caching solution.
How can we implement it? Can we adopt some code from existing NoSQL modules?

Among the list of cons

Posted by FiReaNGeL on December 16, 2010 at 3:46am
FiReaNGeL's picture

Among the list of cons: For HDD i/o bound workloads, a database instance can not execute thousands of queries per second, which normally results in only 1-10% CPU usage. In such cases, SQL execution layer does not become bottleneck, so there is no benefit to use Hanldersocket. We use HandlerSocket on servers that almost all data fit in memory.

Which is the case for many DB scenarios when you have limited RAM.

Buy more ram..

Posted by soltrinox on December 16, 2010 at 4:29am
soltrinox's picture

I mean come on, if you can get serious performance with very little cost of RAM than do it.
Why wouldn't anyone put their Database on a server with less 24 to 36 gigs of RAM if they are doing thousands of queries per second? DUH!

I mean it makes sense, keep everything in memory, that is if your after performance.
I'll definitely give HandlerSocket a try.

what library is better for

Posted by podarok on January 19, 2012 at 3:16pm
podarok's picture

what library is better for us?
I can`t find any tests

The main trouble - that HandlerSocket not webhosting standard - it only for a hiload installations on VPS or VDS

Due to memcached module already in contrib what benefits we can get from it?

Andriy Podanenko
web: http://druler.com