|
因为memcached只支持String数据类型,所以本文只比较String,redis支持的其他数据类型不做评测,另外关闭了redis持久化特性!因为redis的持久化是另起后台任务进行,所以数据量小的时候不会对测试结果有明显影响。
测试环境:
引用
REDHAT6.0 x86_64
Ruby Enterprise Edition version 1.8.7-2010.02
memcached 1.4.4
redis-2.4.6
Gems:
memcached(1.3.5)
hiredis (0.4.4)
相关配置:
memcached:-m 1024 -c 1024 -t 8
内存:1G,并发连接:1024,线程数:8
redis:默认配置,其中持久化数据部分关闭
loglevel warning
#save 900 1
#save 300 10
#save 60 10000
rdbcompression yes
测试方式:随即生成1000byte内的字符串,写入10万次。
memcached代码:
require 'rubygems'
require 'memcached'
@cache = Memcached.new('localhost:11211')
100000.times do |i|
@cache.set "Test/#{i}", '0'*rand(1000)
end
redis测试代码:
require 'rubygems'
require 'hiredis'
@cache = Hiredis::Connection.new
@cache.connect("127.0.0.1", 6379)
100000.times do |i|
@cache.write ['SET', "Test/#{i}", '0'*rand(1000)]
@cache.read
end
测试结果:
realusersys
memcached1x SET pipeline10000 times0.937s0.305s0.376s
redis1x SET pipeline10000 times1.218s0.517s0.318s
memcached10x SET pipeline10000 times1.954s3.311s1.794s
redis10x SET pipeline10000 times3.578s5.610s2.229s
memcached20x SET pipeline10000 times3.724s6.789s3.547s
redis20x SET pipeline10000 times7.024s11.409s4.259s
memcached1x SET pipeline100000 times8.434s2.849s3.165s
redis1x SET pipeline100000 times10.088s3.315s2.979s
memcached10x SET pipeline100000 times15.823s21.094s14.900s
redis10x SET pipeline100000 times26.971s20.364s14.673s
memcached20x SET pipeline100000 times28.992s42.706s29.173s
redis20x SET pipeline100000 times50.189s40.969s27.939s
memcached1x SET pipeline1000000 times1m16.988s26.652s27.189s
redis1x SET pipeline1000000 times1m39.096s25.127s28.373s
memcached10x SET pipeline1000000 times2m30.850s3m22.393s2m26.716s
redis10x SET pipeline1000000 times4m19.509s2m46.179s2m18.871s
memcached20x SET pipeline1000000 times6m22.883s9m2.995s6m5.845s
redis20x SET pipeline1000000 times12m55.556s9m6.064s6m56.633s
结论:
1、memcached的写入性能还是明显要高于redis,特别是多并发的时候,优势更明显!
2、redis server的占用一般在50%左右,memcached server的CPU占用150%左右
3、从总体CPU占用率上来说,redis的优势很明显,4核CPU的使用率没有超过20%,而memcached的CPU一直在50%左右。 |
|