From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 09:25:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAE616A538 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349D943D45 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (sbapqb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9C9PmJ5048691 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:25:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9C9PmUK048690; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:25:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:25:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610120925.k9C9PmUK048690@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3731.71.56.92.181.1160009571.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-performance User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:25:53 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:40:24 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:55 -0000 Jerry Bell wrote: > I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram. > [...] > changed the clock to TSC As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems. Or did that change recently? Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do." -- Dennis M. Ritchie From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 13:22:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7889116A416; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:22:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from www.ebusiness-leidinger.de (jojo.ms-net.de [84.16.236.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330AC43D7E; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:22:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (p54A5E5DE.dip.t-dialin.net [84.165.229.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by www.ebusiness-leidinger.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9CDJokA014746; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:19:57 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from localhost (webmail.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9CDMCwf040572; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:22:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20061012152206.cttnwklqb4s00s8g@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:22:06 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Dan Lukes References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20061011083021.C2780@treehorn.dfmm.org> <452D7351.6050804@obluda.cz> <452DF218.3090902@obluda.cz> In-Reply-To: <452DF218.3090902@obluda.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.3) / FreeBSD-7.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Cc: performance@freebsd.org, security-officer@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosihn , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:22:29 -0000 Quoting Dan Lukes (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): [moved from security@ to performance@] > =09The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about > performance in some situation and believe in it's stability. You can't be sure that a committer has the resources to setup an =20 environment where he is able to reproduce your performance problems. =20 You on the other hand have hands-on experience with the performance =20 problem. If you are able to setup a -current system (because there are =20 changes which may affect performance already, and it is the place =20 where the nuw stuff will be developt) which exposes the bad behavior, =20 you could make yourself familiar with the pmc framework =20 (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure jkoshy@ will help if you =20 have questions) and point out the bottlenecks on current@ and/or =20 performance@ (something similar happened for MySQL, and now we have a =20 webpage in the wiki about it). Without such reports, we can't handle =20 the issue. Further discussion about this should happen in performance@ or current@... Bye, Alexander. --=20 "A penny for your thoughts?" "A dollar for your death." =09=09-- The Odd Couple http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137 From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 14:21:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A9016A4E1 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:21:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.117]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A735043DD9 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:19:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 41609 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Oct 2006 14:19:30 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LokaO2BU0Q6CfHgRANYWaA9hmfWcE4Qee0XajLT0ZbmcsQQ0jG3u9+dOotzqVpxOOCoY5dy0K24hq6n0rGZWAFxc1fOijsdSZzFh6X6iVPtMZhoiWhxU0by1Bt/6zRiXFzG/pawHB4ADBwo2BhcI92e/jqpkg4A0Vt5DC5rFKLM= ; Message-ID: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:19:30 PDT Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: Alexander Leidinger , Dan Lukes In-Reply-To: <20061012152206.cttnwklqb4s00s8g@webmail.leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Garance A Drosihn , security-officer@freebsd.org, performance@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:21:03 -0000 --- Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Dan Lukes (from Thu, 12 > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > [moved from security@ to performance@] > > > The main problem is - 6.x is still not > competitive replacement for > > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported > hardware - I speaked about > > performance in some situation and believe in > it's stability. > > You can't be sure that a committer has the > resources to setup an > environment where he is able to reproduce your > performance problems. > You on the other hand have hands-on experience > with the performance > problem. If you are able to setup a -current > system (because there are > changes which may affect performance already, > and it is the place > where the nuw stuff will be developt) which > exposes the bad behavior, > you could make yourself familiar with the pmc > framework > (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure > jkoshy@ will help if you > have questions) and point out the bottlenecks > on current@ and/or > performance@ (something similar happened for > MySQL, and now we have a > webpage in the wiki about it). Without such > reports, we can't handle > the issue. > > Further discussion about this should happen in > performance@ or current@... > > Bye, > Alexander. > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team to come out of its world of delusion and come to terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD knows: In how ever many years of development, there is still no good reason to use anything other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't support a lot of newer harder. There is no performance advantage in real world applications with multiple processors, and the performance is far worse with 1 processor. The right thing to do is to port the SATA support and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, PLEASE, because it is the case and saying otherwise won't change it. My prediction is that a year from now we'll all be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 15:33:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E9216A4D0 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [64.129.166.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD3643D53 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:33:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9CFXbUP070807; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:33:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:33:40 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060923) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: danial_thom@yahoo.com References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/2026/Thu Oct 12 01:47:06 2006 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:33:38 -0000 On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > --- Alexander Leidinger > wrote: > >> Quoting Dan Lukes (from Thu, 12 >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): >> >> [moved from security@ to performance@] >> >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still not >> competitive replacement for >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported >> hardware - I speaked about >>> performance in some situation and believe in >> it's stability. >> >> You can't be sure that a committer has the >> resources to setup an >> environment where he is able to reproduce your >> performance problems. >> You on the other hand have hands-on experience >> with the performance >> problem. If you are able to setup a -current >> system (because there are >> changes which may affect performance already, >> and it is the place >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) which >> exposes the bad behavior, >> you could make yourself familiar with the pmc >> framework >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure >> jkoshy@ will help if you >> have questions) and point out the bottlenecks >> on current@ and/or >> performance@ (something similar happened for >> MySQL, and now we have a >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without such >> reports, we can't handle >> the issue. >> >> Further discussion about this should happen in >> performance@ or current@... >> >> Bye, >> Alexander. >> > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team > to come out of its world of delusion and come to > terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD > knows: In how ever many years of development, > there is still no good reason to use anything > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > performance advantage in real world applications > with multiple processors, and the performance is > far worse with 1 processor. > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > otherwise won't change it. > > My prediction is that a year from now we'll all > be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be > looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. My prediction is that a year from now single processor systems are going to look like 386's to the rest of the world using multi-proc with FreeBSD-6 or 7, meanwhile enjoying the increased filesystem performance gained from non-giant-locked UFS2, the GEOM tools, etc, etc.. Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up hardware, net connections, and man power to support a cvs repo/packages/etc for the 4.x tree if they want it. That's what people do, and that's the beauty of open source. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 16:36:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3362316A407 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:36:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dudu@dudu.ro) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7023343D8B for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:36:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dudu@dudu.ro) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 13so281300nzn for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.160.7 with SMTP id m7mr3108095qbo; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.225.13 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:36:05 +0300 From: "Vlad GALU" To: "Dan Lukes" In-Reply-To: <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> Cc: FreeBSD Stable , performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:36:29 -0000 On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > > otherwise won't change it. > > Despite I'm initiator of this way of discussion (in security list), I > can't agree with you. No way. > > You are not allowed to tell to someone working as volunteer several > months on something that the best way is rollback all work and start > from scratch. Despite of your complaints are competent or not. You > totally miss the right time for this type of complain. It's too late now. > > 6.x is not crap in any way. It has some problem, even after many months > of development, but it can be resolved if volunteers decide to use it's > power to polish previously implemented code. Current 6.x is better in > many parameters than 4.x. Well, some important parameters are worse, but > correct decision is improve them, not rollback all work. > > I voted against premature EOLing of 4.x, but returning to FreeBSD 4.x > is not acceptable way in any way - at least because it's the DragonBSD's > nest now. > > Dan Don't go with the flow, he's a known troll. -- If it's there, and you can see it, it's real. If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual. If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent. If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 16:39:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535DF16A412 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:39:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hakmi@rogers.com) Received: from smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CBC0A43E07 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:39:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hakmi@rogers.com) Received: (qmail 50214 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2006 16:38:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To; b=MWirUE7aHelEUk9uoCa9wNZncsRqRPGkkHCGUBg3PuchsARL+furPvmTkikZKW3aMLi6BH5Fj7aCycqY3Pkk6GwtBBhJB7yqEUBZQGdB4+yiV4wnsdrMhPMMe6M1orj0LUEIeokgATql/BVdJTL//h70539G0qNL+FKUuuc3qtg= ; Received: from unknown (HELO tamouh) (hakmi@rogers.com@70.27.160.99 with login) by smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Oct 2006 16:38:33 -0000 From: "Tamouh H." To: "'Eric Anderson'" , Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:38:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcbuFdTifsBR06JsTiCoMpbCN5VZagAAMjUA In-Reply-To: <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> Message-Id: <20061012163907.CBC0A43E07@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Cc: performance@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:39:43 -0000 =20 >=20 > Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up=20 > hardware, net connections, and man power to support a cvs=20 > repo/packages/etc for the 4.x tree if they want it. That's=20 > what people do, and that's the beauty of open source. >=20 >=20 > Eric >=20 I agree, however, there appears to be no strategy or procedure for = FreeBSD testing. This has been asked on this group before. Are there any = standardized set number of tools we can deploy on FreeBSD to examine and = test for performance, bugs and compatibility ? Then we can use the reports from these tools to forward them to the = developers for further examination. Tamouh From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 17:54:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CD616A407; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:54:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from demos.bsdclusters.com (demos.bsdclusters.com [69.55.225.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB9143D82; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:53:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from demos.bsdclusters.com (demos [69.55.225.36]) by demos.bsdclusters.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k9CHrMlZ079718; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:53:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from localhost (kmacy@localhost) by demos.bsdclusters.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k9CHrMZD079714; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:53:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: demos.bsdclusters.com: kmacy owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:53:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Kip Macy X-X-Sender: kmacy@demos.bsdclusters.com To: performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061012105249.P77744@demos.bsdclusters.com> References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:10:40 +0000 Cc: Alexander Leidinger , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:54:44 -0000 Please do not feed the trolls. -Kip On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote: > > > --- Alexander Leidinger > wrote: > > > Quoting Dan Lukes (from Thu, 12 > > Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > > > [moved from security@ to performance@] > > > > > The main problem is - 6.x is still not > > competitive replacement for > > > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported > > hardware - I speaked about > > > performance in some situation and believe in > > it's stability. > > > > You can't be sure that a committer has the > > resources to setup an > > environment where he is able to reproduce your > > performance problems. > > You on the other hand have hands-on experience > > with the performance > > problem. If you are able to setup a -current > > system (because there are > > changes which may affect performance already, > > and it is the place > > where the nuw stuff will be developt) which > > exposes the bad behavior, > > you could make yourself familiar with the pmc > > framework > > (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure > > jkoshy@ will help if you > > have questions) and point out the bottlenecks > > on current@ and/or > > performance@ (something similar happened for > > MySQL, and now we have a > > webpage in the wiki about it). Without such > > reports, we can't handle > > the issue. > > > > Further discussion about this should happen in > > performance@ or current@... > > > > Bye, > > Alexander. > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team > to come out of its world of delusion and come to > terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD > knows: In how ever many years of development, > there is still no good reason to use anything > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > performance advantage in real world applications > with multiple processors, and the performance is > far worse with 1 processor. > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > otherwise won't change it. > > My prediction is that a year from now we'll all > be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be > looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. > > DT > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 19:26:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A381B16A47E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:26:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwoolworth@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E08D43D67 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:26:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dwoolworth@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so1246968nfc for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=a2iQ0lFm2yWpSMMumN+Xj2LPw/VZwd9TWGGFS6qc9V0RM7yHYKdeNYP/Jka7opUKqzOU0HZq8VBVA6ClnVcxKaA2CV0TR1XdmG/WW6JuCkP+41GCk9eCWB+JEcyRHbUH3iDM7oasN2ppuSJ4l9ulqcjiyyZuqlMhqhzakl3T2X4= Received: by 10.49.93.13 with SMTP id v13mr5659270nfl; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.218.10 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <10fd06c60610121226y1e985564sbf8f2c6f84050228@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:26:19 -0500 From: "Derrick T. Woolworth" To: performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> Cc: Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:26:32 -0000 What a load... Here's a report... I have over 800 nodes installed in the field with FreeBSD 6.0 running as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with 256MB of RAM. They run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, dual-firewall with custom NetGraph module for Wireless MAC authentication. The company does over 180k a month in subscribers in the trucking industry in the US. The company has TWO network administrators who do very little during the day because the machines NEVER die. If they do, 99.9% of the time its hardware related. I built those systems in 2 months and they support remote rollout of a new operating system snapshot and they're preparing to rollout 7.0 when its stable. I no longer work there - only on occassion when they need assistance. Internally, I have 50 FreeBSD machines hosting over 600 complex web applications that my firm has built over the last 11 years using ONLY FreeBSD. Currently, they're all running FreeBSD 6.0 and later and "I" am the only network administrator in the company. If I was running anything else (which, we do run some Windows machines and they are the bain of my existence...) I would be too busy to do anything else. One of our largest systems has redundant load-balancers with three presentation boxes serving web pages out of memory - again, Apache w/PHP. These boxes build 200+ page 300dpi PDF documents for high school year books (including LOTS of 300+ dpi student and faculty images). They're supported by two mid-sized database machines, one read, one write (replicated, obviously) that do 200 to 500 queries per second at busy times during the day. Graphic data is all stored on SATA data storage systems, which after a bit of tweaking scale really well using NFS and Jumbo Frames - bound multiple NICs with the ng_fec module (thank you thank you guys)... Oh yeah, forgot to mention, once the system was setup, I haven't had to touch it - and even "braver" yet, these 2 load balancers, 3 presentation machines, 2 database machines and 2 1.4TB data storage boxes ALL run 7.0-CURRENT. Call me stupid, brave, whatever - but 7.0 , with the snapshot release I got is the fastest I have ever seen FreeBSD run, regardless of the fact the hardware is fast. I've tuned each machine using the online docs and a bit of help from PHK and Juli Malette... Interesting stat - from 10 other machines, I used ab to toss some hits at these boxes. Like: ab -n 1000 -c 20 The page hit was a test page that did reading and writing, several times to the database and read an image, used MagickWand to resample them and write the image back. The average time for the test took 4 to 5 seconds. I achieved around ~220 requests per second per test machine with 75 to 100ms per request. I don't want to feed the trolls either, but sometimes performance is achieved because you take the time to read and don't just install the OS "as-is" and expect it to work well on all hardware. When configured properly, in my opinion, FreeBSD kicks ass. D On 10/12/06, Eric Anderson wrote: > On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > > > --- Alexander Leidinger > > wrote: > > > >> Quoting Dan Lukes (from Thu, 12 > >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > >> > >> [moved from security@ to performance@] > >> > >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still not > >> competitive replacement for > >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported > >> hardware - I speaked about > >>> performance in some situation and believe in > >> it's stability. > >> > >> You can't be sure that a committer has the > >> resources to setup an > >> environment where he is able to reproduce your > >> performance problems. > >> You on the other hand have hands-on experience > >> with the performance > >> problem. If you are able to setup a -current > >> system (because there are > >> changes which may affect performance already, > >> and it is the place > >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) which > >> exposes the bad behavior, > >> you could make yourself familiar with the pmc > >> framework > >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure > >> jkoshy@ will help if you > >> have questions) and point out the bottlenecks > >> on current@ and/or > >> performance@ (something similar happened for > >> MySQL, and now we have a > >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without such > >> reports, we can't handle > >> the issue. > >> > >> Further discussion about this should happen in > >> performance@ or current@... > >> > >> Bye, > >> Alexander. > >> > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team > > to come out of its world of delusion and come to > > terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD > > knows: In how ever many years of development, > > there is still no good reason to use anything > > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't > > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > > performance advantage in real world applications > > with multiple processors, and the performance is > > far worse with 1 processor. > > > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > > otherwise won't change it. > > > > My prediction is that a year from now we'll all > > be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be > > looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. > > My prediction is that a year from now single processor systems are going > to look like 386's to the rest of the world using multi-proc with > FreeBSD-6 or 7, meanwhile enjoying the increased filesystem performance > gained from non-giant-locked UFS2, the GEOM tools, etc, etc.. > > Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up hardware, > net connections, and man power to support a cvs repo/packages/etc for > the 4.x tree if they want it. That's what people do, and that's the > beauty of open source. > > > Eric > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology > Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Derrick T. Woolworth, President ServeTheWeb, LLC. http://www.ServeTheWeb.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 20:53:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E3B16A47C for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:53:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1590243D53 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:53:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CEC1A3C1C for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6357B51398; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:53:42 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20061012205342.GA62241@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <3731.71.56.92.181.1160009571.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> <200610120925.k9C9PmUK048690@lurza.secnetix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610120925.k9C9PmUK048690@lurza.secnetix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Subject: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:53:43 -0000 --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:48AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Jerry Bell wrote: > > I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G of ram. > > [...] > > changed the clock to TSC >=20 > As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems. >=20 > Or did that change recently? It's only on certain systems, apparently. Note that you have to enable a second sysctl to allow it to actually use TSC on SMP, not just change the preferred timecounter. Kris --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFLqtVWry0BWjoQKURArCBAJ9WlW5bLJDX/uACcgi7XlFc2LxkvQCfTd7E TxilP8bAE5YCPEDZMWG8ISs= =AT4k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 20:54:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6580616A412 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AA5E43D8F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 39898 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Oct 2006 20:54:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LUuTVb47D9UJ1IdaQnsuG1TD7sfMOaoG67cN6gJ1GqCQ7ZJWQ9eYk8djb7+gm1XRI1mij3cWAbC1uPvdd3PysTCigwmH6Jq+1C8jvfkOGjkUYjaM6xReBMqe61YbDXeQUWwvYWo+pAC9n1t9GSoc5y8jbWPQsrPW9/O0+8u0kwY= ; Message-ID: <20061012205434.39896.qmail@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:54:34 PDT Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: Dan Lukes In-Reply-To: <452E6C55.4030003@obluda.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Alexander Leidinger , security-officer@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosihn , performance@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x (was: e: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:43 -0000 --- Dan Lukes wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA > support > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support > both. > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system > and > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away > from > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with > it, > > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > > otherwise won't change it. > > Despite I'm initiator of this way of > discussion (in security list), I > can't agree with you. No way. > > You are not allowed to tell to someone working > as volunteer several > months on something that the best way is > rollback all work and start > from scratch. Despite of your complaints are > competent or not. You > totally miss the right time for this type of > complain. It's too late now. > > 6.x is not crap in any way. It has some > problem, even after many months > of development, but it can be resolved if > volunteers decide to use it's > power to polish previously implemented code. > Current 6.x is better in > many parameters than 4.x. Well, some important > parameters are worse, but > correct decision is improve them, not rollback > all work. > > I voted against premature EOLing of 4.x, but > returning to FreeBSD 4.x > is not acceptable way in any way - at least > because it's the DragonBSD's > nest now. > I didn't say to roll back all of the work. I said to support 4.x as a UP solution, and 6,7 or whatever as what it is now. 5+ will never be as good as 4.x UP, and many networking applications such as firewalls and routers simply will never be able to scale to utilize MP anyway. You had the best damn UP OS in the world, why not continue to support it as so while you try to figure out MP? DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 21:02:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D901B16A4D1 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:02:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.119]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67B7D43D6E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:01:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 38918 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Oct 2006 21:00:52 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=UetWwALDYkaRtUC2BIjwdYloZZnLVEAsJ4MUusqDZzVtu7p20dco6jS+5/Vu96EKHn5f5hfzsPUNFY7V4jxQkM74oAhB76SrMq2bpkSQp+LeHKFk3WsSFHm80IE7Uw1yLYzM+LpW4pkPBcB6XH7ci+kTYXP/Eb0JeI1ouzDroCg= ; Message-ID: <20061012210052.38916.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:00:52 PDT Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:00:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: "Derrick T. Woolworth" , performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <10fd06c60610121226y1e985564sbf8f2c6f84050228@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:02:01 -0000 No one said freebsd 6.0 is useless, but I promise you that 4.x could do any "router" job better than 6.0. And everyone on the FreeBSD team knows it. The point is not the freebsd 5+ can't do a job; its that it doesn't do a job better than 4.x. DT --- "Derrick T. Woolworth" wrote: > What a load... > > Here's a report... > > I have over 800 nodes installed in the field > with FreeBSD 6.0 running > as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with > 256MB of RAM. They > run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, > dual-firewall with custom NetGraph > module for Wireless MAC authentication. The > company does over 180k a > month in subscribers in the trucking industry > in the US. > > The company has TWO network administrators who > do very little during > the day because the machines NEVER die. If > they do, 99.9% of the time > its hardware related. > > I built those systems in 2 months and they > support remote rollout of a > new operating system snapshot and they're > preparing to rollout 7.0 > when its stable. I no longer work there - only > on occassion when they > need assistance. > > Internally, I have 50 FreeBSD machines hosting > over 600 complex web > applications that my firm has built over the > last 11 years using ONLY > FreeBSD. Currently, they're all running > FreeBSD 6.0 and later and "I" > am the only network administrator in the > company. If I was running > anything else (which, we do run some Windows > machines and they are the > bain of my existence...) I would be too busy to > do anything else. > > One of our largest systems has redundant > load-balancers with three > presentation boxes serving web pages out of > memory - again, Apache > w/PHP. These boxes build 200+ page 300dpi PDF > documents for high > school year books (including LOTS of 300+ dpi > student and faculty > images). They're supported by two mid-sized > database machines, one > read, one write (replicated, obviously) that do > 200 to 500 queries per > second at busy times during the day. Graphic > data is all stored on > SATA data storage systems, which after a bit of > tweaking scale really > well using NFS and Jumbo Frames - bound > multiple NICs with the ng_fec > module (thank you thank you guys)... > > Oh yeah, forgot to mention, once the system was > setup, I haven't had > to touch it - and even "braver" yet, these 2 > load balancers, 3 > presentation machines, 2 database machines and > 2 1.4TB data storage > boxes ALL run 7.0-CURRENT. Call me stupid, > brave, whatever - but 7.0 > , with the snapshot release I got is the > fastest I have ever seen > FreeBSD run, regardless of the fact the > hardware is fast. I've tuned > each machine using the online docs and a bit of > help from PHK and Juli > Malette... > > Interesting stat - from 10 other machines, I > used ab to toss some hits > at these boxes. Like: > > ab -n 1000 -c 20 > > The page hit was a test page that did reading > and writing, several > times to the database and read an image, used > MagickWand to resample > them and write the image back. > > The average time for the test took 4 to 5 > seconds. I achieved around > ~220 requests per second per test machine with > 75 to 100ms per > request. > > I don't want to feed the trolls either, but > sometimes performance is > achieved because you take the time to read and > don't just install the > OS "as-is" and expect it to work well on all > hardware. When > configured properly, in my opinion, FreeBSD > kicks ass. > > D > > On 10/12/06, Eric Anderson > wrote: > > On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > > > > > --- Alexander Leidinger > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Quoting Dan Lukes (from > Thu, 12 > > >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > >> > > >> [moved from security@ to performance@] > > >> > > >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still > not > > >> competitive replacement for > > >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old > unsupported > > >> hardware - I speaked about > > >>> performance in some situation and believe > in > > >> it's stability. > > >> > > >> You can't be sure that a committer has the > > >> resources to setup an > > >> environment where he is able to reproduce > your > > >> performance problems. > > >> You on the other hand have hands-on > experience > > >> with the performance > > >> problem. If you are able to setup a > -current > > >> system (because there are > > >> changes which may affect performance > already, > > >> and it is the place > > >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) > which > > >> exposes the bad behavior, > > >> you could make yourself familiar with the > pmc > > >> framework > > >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm > sure > > >> jkoshy@ will help if you > > >> have questions) and point out the > bottlenecks > > >> on current@ and/or > > >> performance@ (something similar happened > for > > >> MySQL, and now we have a > > >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without > such > > >> reports, we can't handle > > >> the issue. > > >> > > >> Further discussion about this should > happen in > > >> performance@ or current@... > > >> > > >> Bye, > > >> Alexander. > > >> > > > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD > team > > > to come out of its world of delusion and > come to > > > terms with what every real-life user of > FreeBSD > > > knows: In how ever many years of > development, > > > there is still no good reason to use > anything > > > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x > doesn't > > > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > > > performance advantage in real world > applications > > > with multiple processors, and the > performance is > > > far worse with 1 processor. > > > > > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA > support > > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support > both. > > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor > system and > > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away > from > > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms > with === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 22:17:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350C316A403 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:17:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwoolworth@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609B843D60 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:17:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dwoolworth@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so1295281nfc for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:17:33 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=QY0A3WyFaWWR1TKlJ+no0/1MiPJ/oCq+m2KIDQ2cvO21N6wZMwjUG+FOkMiZWP1tMIX38GPVnh8fQMX8xDo7POZ1gOioy0/1KWUOTy2bZAKY7WTthRNzoVUDqSssglQd3eykqyABvQx/yW9GnFyZ4RmnQ2YN9oxqSP1P/jFHJSg= Received: by 10.49.80.12 with SMTP id h12mr5844750nfl; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.218.10 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <10fd06c60610121517s3e7c1266i9ccd026dc1adc974@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:17:31 -0500 From: "Derrick T. Woolworth" To: danial_thom@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <20061012210052.38916.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <10fd06c60610121226y1e985564sbf8f2c6f84050228@mail.gmail.com> <20061012210052.38916.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cc: performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:17:35 -0000 Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x? The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to believe you're not really trying to solve any problems. D On 10/12/06, Danial Thom wrote: > No one said freebsd 6.0 is useless, but I promise > you that 4.x could do any "router" job better > than 6.0. And everyone on the FreeBSD team knows > it. The point is not the freebsd 5+ can't do a > job; its that it doesn't do a job better than > 4.x. > > DT > > --- "Derrick T. Woolworth" > wrote: > > > What a load... > > > > Here's a report... > > > > I have over 800 nodes installed in the field > > with FreeBSD 6.0 running > > as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with > > 256MB of RAM. They > > run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, > > dual-firewall with custom NetGraph > > module for Wireless MAC authentication. The > > company does over 180k a > > month in subscribers in the trucking industry > > in the US. > > > > The company has TWO network administrators who > > do very little during > > the day because the machines NEVER die. If > > they do, 99.9% of the time > > its hardware related. > > > > I built those systems in 2 months and they > > support remote rollout of a > > new operating system snapshot and they're > > preparing to rollout 7.0 > > when its stable. I no longer work there - only > > on occassion when they > > need assistance. > > > > Internally, I have 50 FreeBSD machines hosting > > over 600 complex web > > applications that my firm has built over the > > last 11 years using ONLY > > FreeBSD. Currently, they're all running > > FreeBSD 6.0 and later and "I" > > am the only network administrator in the > > company. If I was running > > anything else (which, we do run some Windows > > machines and they are the > > bain of my existence...) I would be too busy to > > do anything else. > > > > One of our largest systems has redundant > > load-balancers with three > > presentation boxes serving web pages out of > > memory - again, Apache > > w/PHP. These boxes build 200+ page 300dpi PDF > > documents for high > > school year books (including LOTS of 300+ dpi > > student and faculty > > images). They're supported by two mid-sized > > database machines, one > > read, one write (replicated, obviously) that do > > 200 to 500 queries per > > second at busy times during the day. Graphic > > data is all stored on > > SATA data storage systems, which after a bit of > > tweaking scale really > > well using NFS and Jumbo Frames - bound > > multiple NICs with the ng_fec > > module (thank you thank you guys)... > > > > Oh yeah, forgot to mention, once the system was > > setup, I haven't had > > to touch it - and even "braver" yet, these 2 > > load balancers, 3 > > presentation machines, 2 database machines and > > 2 1.4TB data storage > > boxes ALL run 7.0-CURRENT. Call me stupid, > > brave, whatever - but 7.0 > > , with the snapshot release I got is the > > fastest I have ever seen > > FreeBSD run, regardless of the fact the > > hardware is fast. I've tuned > > each machine using the online docs and a bit of > > help from PHK and Juli > > Malette... > > > > Interesting stat - from 10 other machines, I > > used ab to toss some hits > > at these boxes. Like: > > > > ab -n 1000 -c 20 > > > > The page hit was a test page that did reading > > and writing, several > > times to the database and read an image, used > > MagickWand to resample > > them and write the image back. > > > > The average time for the test took 4 to 5 > > seconds. I achieved around > > ~220 requests per second per test machine with > > 75 to 100ms per > > request. > > > > I don't want to feed the trolls either, but > > sometimes performance is > > achieved because you take the time to read and > > don't just install the > > OS "as-is" and expect it to work well on all > > hardware. When > > configured properly, in my opinion, FreeBSD > > kicks ass. > > > > D > > > > On 10/12/06, Eric Anderson > > wrote: > > > On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Alexander Leidinger > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Quoting Dan Lukes (from > > Thu, 12 > > > >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > > > >> > > > >> [moved from security@ to performance@] > > > >> > > > >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still > > not > > > >> competitive replacement for > > > >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old > > unsupported > > > >> hardware - I speaked about > > > >>> performance in some situation and believe > > in > > > >> it's stability. > > > >> > > > >> You can't be sure that a committer has the > > > >> resources to setup an > > > >> environment where he is able to reproduce > > your > > > >> performance problems. > > > >> You on the other hand have hands-on > > experience > > > >> with the performance > > > >> problem. If you are able to setup a > > -current > > > >> system (because there are > > > >> changes which may affect performance > > already, > > > >> and it is the place > > > >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) > > which > > > >> exposes the bad behavior, > > > >> you could make yourself familiar with the > > pmc > > > >> framework > > > >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm > > sure > > > >> jkoshy@ will help if you > > > >> have questions) and point out the > > bottlenecks > > > >> on current@ and/or > > > >> performance@ (something similar happened > > for > > > >> MySQL, and now we have a > > > >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without > > such > > > >> reports, we can't handle > > > >> the issue. > > > >> > > > >> Further discussion about this should > > happen in > > > >> performance@ or current@... > > > >> > > > >> Bye, > > > >> Alexander. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD > > team > > > > to come out of its world of delusion and > > come to > > > > terms with what every real-life user of > > FreeBSD > > > > knows: In how ever many years of > > development, > > > > there is still no good reason to use > > anything > > > > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x > > doesn't > > > > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > > > > performance advantage in real world > > applications > > > > with multiple processors, and the > > performance is > > > > far worse with 1 processor. > > > > > > > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA > > support > > > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support > > both. > > > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor > > system and > > > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away > > from > > > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms > > with > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- Derrick T. Woolworth, President ServeTheWeb, LLC. http://www.ServeTheWeb.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 22:25:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20BE16A40F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:25:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B17743D6E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:25:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB421A3C1E; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BA7A45159E; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:25:08 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: "Derrick T. Woolworth" Message-ID: <20061012222508.GA63618@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <10fd06c60610121226y1e985564sbf8f2c6f84050228@mail.gmail.com> <20061012210052.38916.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <10fd06c60610121517s3e7c1266i9ccd026dc1adc974@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10fd06c60610121517s3e7c1266i9ccd026dc1adc974@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:25:10 -0000 --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:17:31PM -0500, Derrick T. Woolworth wrote: > Where are the numbers for this? Where is the proof? Are you using > CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using UNIX sockets in 4.x? >=20 > The fact that your claims haven't been substantiated leads me to > believe you're not really trying to solve any problems. Just ignore this guy, he has an extremely narrow focus of what he wants to use FreeBSD for, and since FreeBSD doesn't meet his standards in this single area he claims that the entire OS is useless for any purposes. Kris --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFLsDEWry0BWjoQKURAipMAKC/xM/GHHpoEai9seVN+TxkUISTYQCdGV6M 5D/H7IqNGnv9ISOH4bQBd7s= =H/jl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 18:27:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CAE16A4DD for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:27:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drbrain@segment7.net) Received: from toxic.magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4020043D9B for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:26:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drbrain@segment7.net) Received: from [192.168.1.70] (coop.robotcoop.com [216.231.59.167]) by toxic.magnesium.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06290DA89F; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20061012205342.GA62241@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <3731.71.56.92.181.1160009571.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> <200610120925.k9C9PmUK048690@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061012205342.GA62241@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Hodel Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:26:09 -0700 To: Kris Kennaway X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:27:42 -0000 On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:48AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: >> Jerry Bell wrote: >>> I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G >>> of ram. >>> [...] >>> changed the clock to TSC >> >> As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems. >> >> Or did that change recently? > > It's only on certain systems, apparently. Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with SMP? Or some script we can run? > Note that you have to enable a second sysctl to allow it to actually > use TSC on SMP, not just change the preferred timecounter. -- Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant http://trackmap.robotcoop.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 18:49:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896A616A407 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:49:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.171]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFE043D68 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:49:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin05-en2 [10.13.10.150]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout01/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k9DIn7Mh010451; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.214.13.96] (a17-214-13-96.apple.com [17.214.13.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin05/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k9DIn5Yr023019; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3731.71.56.92.181.1160009571.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> <200610120925.k9C9PmUK048690@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061012205342.GA62241@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9500A2C9-07EB-4EEA-9477-9E6B4BFEB437@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Chuck Swiger Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:49:04 -0700 To: Eric Hodel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-scanned: yes Cc: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:49:09 -0000 On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote: >>> Or did that change recently? >> >> It's only on certain systems, apparently. > > Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with > SMP? Or some script we can run? The problem of the TSC clocks getting out of sync affects pretty much all AMD X2 dual-core CPUs, as well as the older 32-bit Althon MP CPUs; the Intel Xeon and Core Duo CPUs seem to do a lot better, although older Intel CPUs have also been reported to show problems with the TSC. Disabling the fancy power-management capabilities (SpeedStep, PowerNow, Cool-n-quiet) to prevent the system from adjusting the CPU clock frequencies seems to reduce the extent of the problem. However, if you want your system clock to work reliably, using the ACPI-safe or i8254 timecounters is going to do much better than using the faster-but-unreliable TSC method. -- -Chuck From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 20:13:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF49316A646 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD1A43D90 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2787F1A3C19; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 569C3514AF; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:13:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:13:21 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Chuck Swiger Message-ID: <20061013201321.GA774@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <3731.71.56.92.181.1160009571.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> <200610120925.k9C9PmUK048690@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061012205342.GA62241@xor.obsecurity.org> <9500A2C9-07EB-4EEA-9477-9E6B4BFEB437@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9500A2C9-07EB-4EEA-9477-9E6B4BFEB437@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG, Kris Kennaway , Eric Hodel Subject: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:59 -0000 --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote: > >>>Or did that change recently? > >> > >>It's only on certain systems, apparently. > > > >Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with =20 > >SMP? Or some script we can run? >=20 > The problem of the TSC clocks getting out of sync affects pretty much =20 > all AMD X2 dual-core CPUs, as well as the older 32-bit Althon MP =20 > CPUs; the Intel Xeon and Core Duo CPUs seem to do a lot better, =20 > although older Intel CPUs have also been reported to show problems =20 > with the TSC. >=20 > Disabling the fancy power-management capabilities (SpeedStep, =20 > PowerNow, Cool-n-quiet) to prevent the system from adjusting the CPU =20 > clock frequencies seems to reduce the extent of the problem. =20 > However, if you want your system clock to work reliably, using the =20 > ACPI-safe or i8254 timecounters is going to do much better than using =20 > the faster-but-unreliable TSC method. Beyond that, just see if it works ;-) Kris --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFL/NgWry0BWjoQKURAlQ/AJ9GPXFiWr7wZDw+YLm2B3nV5XqWqwCfQkMS FEatqEPd4xFA++6nUFV6PWc= =0MD/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 20:22:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1783816A47C for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:22:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C906D43DA3 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:21:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k9DKLthe034222; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:21:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k9DKLsUw048499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:21:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20061013161851.14c2f978@sentex.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:19:56 -0400 To: "Jerry Bell" From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <4472.209.134.164.20.1160162446.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> References: <3731.71.56.92.181.1160009571.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> <45255A36.5010108@quip.cz> <2840.71.56.92.181.1160090644.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> <452603CA.8070800@thebeastie.org> <4472.209.134.164.20.1160162446.squirrel@www.stelesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:22:10 -0000 At 03:20 PM 10/6/2006, Jerry Bell wrote: >I have actually made the changes to my.cnf before I ran these. I expanded >them quite a bit beyond what is in my-large.cnf. I need to pull them back Hi, I was just looking at this thread as its relevant to a new DB server I am trying to put together. For the archives, can you post what you found to be your optimal configuration for mysql on 6.2 ? ---Mike From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 20:34:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B018016A415 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:34:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.127]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8737043D49 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:34:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 46154 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Oct 2006 20:34:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=zPb5uPF2hnA5LF0PQ9pod0AEbdsMGHszj4NOjw/nZfZqq+IuUqE/Nibk51sUxUZqcqKHwPVK0cl678XgSI42WxMPk2QF8G1vkB1ClAsTqOTOhyZjTQ1zwKiJbLcWCoMVnQ8ILgiN0h1xJC12gnvW2F/vIYcWkM41NnLbCkBbv5c= ; Message-ID: <20061013203436.46152.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:34:36 PDT Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:34:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: Kris Kennaway , "Derrick T. Woolworth" In-Reply-To: <20061012222508.GA63618@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:34:37 -0000 Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always. Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as 4.x uniprocessor, but you guys still continue to claim otherwise. Clowns following clowns to the land of nowhere. Its virtually impossible to build a threaded kernel that is faster than a non-threaded kernel for UP operation. You can ask Matt Dillon or Robert Watson or Terry Lambert or anyone else that you think has a brain. Its just plain stupid to suggest otherwise. --- Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:17:31PM -0500, > Derrick T. Woolworth wrote: > > Where are the numbers for this? Where is the > proof? Are you using > > CARP and PF in the 4.x kernel? Are you using > UNIX sockets in 4.x? > > > > The fact that your claims haven't been > substantiated leads me to > > believe you're not really trying to solve any > problems. > > Just ignore this guy, he has an extremely > narrow focus of what he > wants to use FreeBSD for, and since FreeBSD > doesn't meet his standards > in this single area he claims that the entire > OS is useless for any > purposes. > > Kris > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 20:42:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C7D16A412 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:42:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360BE43D5E for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:42:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8E51A3C20; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8BBBA514AF; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:42:10 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Danial Thom Message-ID: <20061013204210.GA3147@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20061012222508.GA63618@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061013203436.46152.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061013203436.46152.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org, "Derrick T. Woolworth" , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:42:18 -0000 --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote: > Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always. =20 >=20 > Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has > admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as > 4.x uniprocessor FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is demonstrably false in generality, which is what makes 6.x so useful to many people. If you can one day get this through your head and stop posting false claims, people may eventually stop calling you a troll. I hope so, because you might actually have something to contribute if only you can learn to properly qualify your statements. Kris --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFL/oiWry0BWjoQKURAsELAKCUebVEv+2lPh1JYjWSy1qZP36acACg9oHj IMpNb8g/TALBzYAH+xnpVlQ= =d8Z+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 13:03:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2C016A407 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:03:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.127]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8E8443D46 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:03:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 68865 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Oct 2006 13:03:31 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vnbfQM6BRX/To4hS1Gjo0MZWdaPPBLlKXm5xeNeQISNvGk/kj8J5i/6qSBG5YJqkVUJb3RRU52w0wNyny20ShsCijyza2OapEXxQ9ek3fbpP7Wj433XKqq0ylq+7jpdaCcb7wCicspPGoAU7plVCMs3Rt+u5JUwCP7QqZ0pEPs0= ; Message-ID: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:03:31 PDT Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:03:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20061013204210.GA3147@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org, "Derrick T. Woolworth" , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:03:32 -0000 Unfortunately, the "certain tasks" are squid, apache and networking applications, which are the only viable reasons to use the OS commercially. I've yet to hear 1 (thats *one*) commercial vendor who built a product on 4.x claim to move to 5 or 6 because of its superior performance. The only ones I know that have switched did so because of some device they needed or SATA support. I continue to be baffled by the following after 4 years of complete failure to make MP perform. Its almost like the entire user base is drugged or something. Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, nor is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep 4.x as an option is an easy one to make. DT --- Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, > Danial Thom wrote: > > Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always. > > > > Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson > has > > admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast > as > > 4.x uniprocessor > > FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is > demonstrably false in > generality, which is what makes 6.x so useful > to many people. > > If you can one day get this through your head > and stop posting false > claims, people may eventually stop calling you > a troll. I hope so, > because you might actually have something to > contribute if only you > can learn to properly qualify your statements. > > Kris > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 14:13:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9065716A407 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:13:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B5243D70 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:13:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) Received: from anb.matik.com.br (anb.matik.com.br [200.152.88.34] (may be forged)) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9EEDauB017500 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:13:36 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) From: NOC Prowip Organization: Prowip Telecom Ltda To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:13:24 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,ISO_7BITS autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: Antispam Datacenter Matik msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:13:44 -0000 > Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, nor > is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales > with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep > 4.x as an option is an easy one to make. > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems are. All platforms are going to be 64bits and memory of 4GB or more is not so rare anymore. Allmost all AM2 MBs support already 16MB. Even most professionals are not using SCSI anymore but Sata-II. Only this some points discard 4.11. When I migrated from 4.11 to 5.x I first was disappointed but after learning better my 5.5 SMP apache are not that bad today. MySql is also not behind, only the write performance is not as good as I wanted to but my 6.2 SMP Squids are real faster under load. But I do not use i386 or UP anymore. So for me my Athlon32XP 2GB bummer was perhaps faster with 4.11 than with 6.x on it but I believe that 4.11 do not make it up to 6.2-amd64 on FX62 with 8GB but I never tried that and guess I would not either. Hans -- Prowip Telecom Ltda AS 22706 A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 15:38:14 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9015416A403 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: from mail.geeks.org (jacobs.Geeks.ORG [204.153.247.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D8B43D5E for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: by mail.geeks.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4FF7D159065; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:38:13 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:38:13 -0500 From: Mike Horwath To: NOC Prowip Message-ID: <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> Mail-Followup-To: NOC Prowip , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> X-PGP-Fingerprint: D8 24 CC E6 47 5F E4 60 BF B7 6E FA BF C7 6E C5 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6A89 E78A B8B1 69D9 8CDB E966 4A5A C3F9 A1B0 C381 User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:14 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote: > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but > also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems > are. Wow, I hope not. Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and such. Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 systems. > All platforms are going to be 64bits and memory of 4GB or more is > not so rare anymore. Allmost all AM2 MBs support already 16MB. Even > most professionals are not using SCSI anymore but Sata-II. I disagree. SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. Let's just look at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. Now, I am not a lover of 32bit either, all of my new systems are amd64 (either Opteron or EM64T systems). -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 16:13:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936DA16A407 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:13:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F0643D49 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:13:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) Received: from anb.matik.com.br (anb.matik.com.br [200.152.88.34] (may be forged)) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9EGDefM022747; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:13:40 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from tec@mega.net.br) From: NOC Prowip Organization: Prowip Telecom Ltda To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:13:27 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> In-Reply-To: <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,ISO_7BITS autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: Antispam Datacenter Matik msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Mike Horwath Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:13:49 -0000 On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote: > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but > > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but > > also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems > > are. > > Wow, I hope not. > only a matter of time I guess, next year we will have 64bit quad-cores and I am really not sure if anybody will build 32bit versions ever again > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and such. > are this dinos still serving somewhere? > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 systems. > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... > > All platforms are going to be 64bits and memory of 4GB or more is > > not so rare anymore. Allmost all AM2 MBs support already 16MB. Even > > most professionals are not using SCSI anymore but Sata-II. > > I disagree. > I didn't say I agree but probably also only a matter of time for me > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. Let's just look > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is becoming a valid option for small servers. Hans -- Prowip Telecom Ltda AS 22706 A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 16:24:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0605A16A415 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:24:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from robert@ml.erje.net) Received: from smtpout-2.iphouse.net (smtpout-2.iphouse.net [216.250.188.191]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B7143D49 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:24:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from robert@ml.erje.net) Received: from smtpout-2.iphouse.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by outbound-clamsmtpd.iphouse.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22DE2AC508 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:24:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ziemel.erje.net (ismet.erje.net [213.84.32.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpout-2.iphouse.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562532AC507 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:24:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ismet.erje.net (ismet.erje.net [IPv6:2001:888:1f33::8e45:7e]) by ziemel.erje.net (PostFix 2.3.3) with ESMTP id AAEE8128834 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ismet.erje.net (PostFix 2.3.3, from userid 3003) id 9B42416C4CA; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:23:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:22:23 +0200 From: Robert Joosten To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061014162222.GB716@iphouse.com> References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> X-ICQ: 13643672 X-geek-code-v3.1: G!>CS@O dx>--@ s: a31(32) C+++ UBL++++$ P++ L-@+++$ !E W(+) N+++(*) o-- K- w- O- M- V- PS+@ PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R* !tv b++@ DI++ D G-- e@ h*(+) r>+@ z+c X-FreeBSD: 026746 X-Mobile/GSM/cell: +3162526777 X-msn: BlixKater X-No-rights-can-be-derived: Indeed X-Face: 0[uRd; X4=_; G; $DL6Wm=\]R/TWu1f+t|,Li1Q-maBcUyCJsAw(Nmj-(aDA!Kk#hLr#njX9T@U-rQm?Z53"_]SBYab3-NCkCN/{1-#0T4U1Ry"TPY~dtpzfxs$9"BrXKPylt/#5QQb/y+|LF}; X-bored-?-crack-this: 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 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-ziemel.erje.net-MailScanner: Ok, found to be clean X-Spam-Status: No X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:24:29 -0000 Hi, > but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when > compiling world or untarring large files. Well, put that '10K Raptor' in a loaded fileserver and compare it with a SCSI thing. Most scsi implementations I know are much more scalable when there's a realworld load sucking it till death. Try it ;-) Have a great weekend y'all. Kind regards, Robert From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 18:05:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E2816A417 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: from mail.geeks.org (jacobs.Geeks.ORG [204.153.247.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5DA43D53 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: by mail.geeks.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 73B91159035; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:05:18 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:05:18 -0500 From: Mike Horwath To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061014180518.GA75972@Geeks.ORG> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> X-PGP-Fingerprint: D8 24 CC E6 47 5F E4 60 BF B7 6E FA BF C7 6E C5 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6A89 E78A B8B1 69D9 8CDB E966 4A5A C3F9 A1B0 C381 User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD) Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:19 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:13:27PM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote: > > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention to fire things up but > > > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not only 4.11 is gone but > > > also i386 is practically marked to die out as well as UP systems > > > are. > > > > Wow, I hope not. > > only a matter of time I guess, next year we will have 64bit > quad-cores and I am really not sure if anybody will build 32bit > versions ever again Again, I hope not. > > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and such. > > are this dinos still serving somewhere? > > > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 systems. > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production > server) or by lack of money to buy some nasty HW ... Ah, hardware bigotry. Your colors are showing. > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. Let's just look > > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI. > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver and probably can't do > it so soon but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K > 320Mb SCSI when compiling world or untarring large files. Also NCQ > is not reserved to SCSI anymore so when you see the price then it is > becoming a valid option for small servers. And your testing methodogy was...what? Small servers? No, let's talk about 'servers', not just 'small servers'. Very high disk I/O requires more than NCQ and 10K RPM disks, though if you have a 'need' of disk space over performance, then SATA will be your bitch as the cost (vs size) of SCSI vs SATA do change things. Not all of us use small servers, though. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 18:05:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498F416A40F for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: from mail.geeks.org (jacobs.Geeks.ORG [204.153.247.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF16743D49 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: by mail.geeks.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 16F9A15903C; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:05:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:05:55 -0500 From: Mike Horwath To: Robert Joosten Message-ID: <20061014180555.GB75972@Geeks.ORG> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Joosten , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20061014130331.68863.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> <20061014162222.GB716@iphouse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061014162222.GB716@iphouse.com> X-PGP-Fingerprint: D8 24 CC E6 47 5F E4 60 BF B7 6E FA BF C7 6E C5 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6A89 E78A B8B1 69D9 8CDB E966 4A5A C3F9 A1B0 C381 User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:05:56 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:22:23PM +0200, Robert Joosten wrote: > Hi, > > > but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then a 15K 320Mb SCSI when > > compiling world or untarring large files. > > Well, put that '10K Raptor' in a loaded fileserver and compare it > with a SCSI thing. Most scsi implementations I know are much more > scalable when there's a realworld load sucking it till death. Try it > ;-) Shhh... > Have a great weekend y'all. yahyah, I concur. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 20:13:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C30016A407 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:13:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.127]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE83D43D49 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:13:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 30813 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Oct 2006 20:13:43 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=KHoC1sWumVO4RnnkcYxQmN+D/875Wx7BupXV3Ry6IQhCme0Licd5xeXf2PhZo71/0L/fz9/PrcdH30Gf3N7kEztYPvYlpv2elI2+U+Y3O29mMJnd2Yz5IReHEHa249taUDUtdao8yHjs6EyPIcQHxuMhEJbgkJ/iI8z34GeSOS4= ; Message-ID: <20061014201343.30811.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:13:43 PDT Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: NOC Prowip , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200610141313.28868.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Mike Horwath Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:13:45 -0000 The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't mean you have to use them, just like a MB with 2 sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the OS is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you only use one of the cores. The concept that you have to fire up both of them just because they're there is just stupid. Freebsd 4.11 is dead because of a stupid decision but people who thought that MP would have been working 2 years ago. They continue to not be able to promise any scalability in the foreseeable future, so maybe they need to revisit the decision. "supporting" 4.11 only means making it work with new devices, not porting everything back. The only things necessary would be SATA and a bunch of NICs. Most MBs work with 4.x so its not a big maintenance project. DT --- NOC Prowip wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath > wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC > Prowip wrote: > > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any > intention to fire things up but > > > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? > Not only 4.11 is gone but > > > also i386 is practically marked to die out > as well as UP systems > > > are. > > > > Wow, I hope not. > > > > only a matter of time I guess, next year we > will have 64bit quad-cores and I > am really not sure if anybody will build 32bit > versions ever again > > > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and > such. > > > > are this dinos still serving somewhere? > > > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 > systems. > > > > I would say this preference is mostly set by > beeing afraid of migration (lots > of things can come up when migrating a > production server) or by lack of money > to buy some nasty HW ... > > > > > All platforms are going to be 64bits and > memory of 4GB or more is > > > not so rare anymore. Allmost all AM2 MBs > support already 16MB. Even > > > most professionals are not using SCSI > anymore but Sata-II. > > > > I disagree. > > > > I didn't say I agree but probably also only a > matter of time for me > > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like > SCSI. Let's just look > > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other > benefits of SCSI. > > > > I had no time to test it on a life webserver > and probably can't do it so soon > but I tell you that a 10K Raptor is faster then > a 15K 320Mb SCSI when > compiling world or untarring large files. Also > NCQ is not reserved to SCSI > anymore so when you see the price then it is > becoming a valid option for > small servers. > > Hans > > > > > > -- > > Prowip Telecom Ltda > AS 22706 > > > > > > > > A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail > e pode ser considerada segura. > Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik > https://datacenter.matik.com.br > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 20:21:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E12716A412 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:21:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.124]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EEB943D55 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:21:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 23947 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Oct 2006 20:21:28 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Udqbfl/IdDPS0K139Guy6nVDJXRzoaK/sMjnjeZQM3OKtae/36tIip1/lxCOg+Iv+mc6hhwSd2/SwUWNzELatzkK8WyN95f00UzbabUkjJWkxYtNQHp5jX0jSA33mqOK74IM8q+2dzzMG0UPFWCtC3miN+V9Wyt6KXNF55ElQy0= ; Message-ID: <20061014202128.23945.qmail@web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:21:28 PDT Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: NOC Prowip , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200610141113.25155.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:21:31 -0000 --- NOC Prowip wrote: > > > Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor, > nor > > is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux > scales > > with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to > keep > > 4.x as an option is an easy one to make. > > > > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any intention > to fire things up but isn 't > this discussion certainly useless? Not only > 4.11 is gone but also i386 is > practically marked to die out as well as UP > systems are. All platforms are > going to be 64bits and memory of 4GB or more is > not so rare anymore. Allmost > all AM2 MBs support already 16MB. Even most > professionals are not using SCSI > anymore but Sata-II. Only this some points > discard 4.11. > When I migrated from 4.11 to 5.x I first was > disappointed but after learning > better my 5.5 SMP apache are not that bad > today. MySql is also not behind, > only the write performance is not as good as I > wanted to but my 6.2 SMP > Squids are real faster under load. But I do not > use i386 or UP anymore. > So for me my Athlon32XP 2GB bummer was perhaps > faster with 4.11 than with 6.x > on it but I believe that 4.11 do not make it up > to 6.2-amd64 on FX62 with 8GB > but I never tried that and guess I would not > either. > > > Hans Every "real-world" test with 64-bit builds I'v done is so slow its not even usable in my view. The larger code causes things to fall out of the cache faster, and caching is more important to performance than 64-bit processing. Just because 64-bit is there doesn't mean you have to use it or should. If you don't need more than 4GB then its just plain stupid to use a 64-bit OS, at least with the current state of OSes. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 20:30:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0550716A415 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:30:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.127]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F10243D5E for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:30:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 36250 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Oct 2006 20:30:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=R4AiC/PchOVK4ZTeSWthajda0c//xxyBloB4OEoTN8dNMj6iDYbTI499UdrDMu1bvLZM/S4Na4GSsu8xH0yw/Vg3C34GyvrGF1Vyii0ejthOcyDsg7aOZTC3oyu9UKEzBRyGhBRtBVOowM0DxeLmMd5tV3PsVda3haUwuvk37Ik= ; Message-ID: <20061014203002.36248.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:30:02 PDT Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: Mike Horwath , NOC Prowip In-Reply-To: <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:30:04 -0000 --- Mike Horwath wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC > Prowip wrote: > > Hi, I am hooking in here without any > intention to fire things up but > > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not > only 4.11 is gone but > > also i386 is practically marked to die out as > well as UP systems > > are. > > Wow, I hope not. > > Unless you are separating out i386/i486 and > such. > > Many people refer to i386 as all 32bit x86 > systems. > > > All platforms are going to be 64bits and > memory of 4GB or more is > > not so rare anymore. Allmost all AM2 MBs > support already 16MB. Even > > most professionals are not using SCSI anymore > but Sata-II. > > I disagree. > > SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like > SCSI. Let's just look > at spindle speed alone ignoring the other > benefits of SCSI. You should try the new 10K WD drives (the ones that just came out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd have to use FreeBSD 6 to use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x to get maximum performance. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 21:19:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5092716A403 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:19:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: from mail.geeks.org (jacobs.Geeks.ORG [204.153.247.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0772B43D49 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:19:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drechsau@Geeks.ORG) Received: by mail.geeks.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 432AC159035; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:19:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:19:14 -0500 From: Mike Horwath To: Danial Thom Message-ID: <20061014211914.GA79862@Geeks.ORG> Mail-Followup-To: Danial Thom , NOC Prowip , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20061014153813.GC72440@Geeks.ORG> <20061014203002.36248.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061014203002.36248.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-PGP-Fingerprint: D8 24 CC E6 47 5F E4 60 BF B7 6E FA BF C7 6E C5 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6A89 E78A B8B1 69D9 8CDB E966 4A5A C3F9 A1B0 C381 User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD) Cc: NOC Prowip , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Mike Horwath Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:19:15 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:30:02PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote: > You should try the new 10K WD drives (the ones that just came > out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd have to use FreeBSD 6 to > use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x to get maximum > performance. You are so completely wrong. The 10K WD disks are fully usuable under FreeBSD 4.x. In fact, I have more than 8 systems doing such, using 10K WD Raptor drives and FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE. Where do people come up with these statements? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG