Ask HN: Anyone used XtraDB from Percona (instead of InnoDB)?

30 points by immad ↗ HN
Has any one tried out XtraDB?

It is supposed to be better than InnoDB and has binary compatibility with InnoDB database files.

Here are a couple of articles on it for those interested:

http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/08/13/xtradb-the-top-10-enhancements/

http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7356/1.html

8 comments

[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 34.9 ms ] thread
Yeah, we've used it at StyleFeeder for some stuff. Although we leaned pretty hard on it, I really didn't see a big difference either way. I was a little surprised and expected to see some real gains, but they never materialized.
That's a shame. Was it easy to set up?
Except for CPU scalability, most of the new features require configuration to be turned on. Some of the features are just that they allow something to be configurable and nothing else.

For example in the top 10 article linked to, being able to change IO capacity and number of read/write threads is awesome! Another example is insert buffer control.

I recently deployed XtraDB 1.0.4-8 with MySQL 5.1.39 -- I've seen speedups of upto 50% on some queries -- especially on 1M+ row updates.

Setup is easy. Here's what I did 1. download mysql 5.1.39 source tarball 2. download percona xtradb 1.0.4-8 3. extract mysql 5.1.39 tarball 4. delete contents of 'mysql-5.1.39/storage/innobase' 5. extract contents of xtradb tarball into 'mysql-5.1.39/storage/innobase' 6. compile mysql source with standard configure options

I use it on one of my servers. But unfortunately, I have no data to compare to =(
To answer your question: Yes - I've used it. I wrote the first article you linked to though, so I guess I had to :p
We started using XtraDB a few months ago, I wasn't involved in the actual implementation of it so I asked our DBA, here is what he said:

"it is supposed to work better with 8 core boxes like we have - both in terms of IO, and cpu usage.

it also gives us more flexibility on tweaking parameters."