From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 9 05:32:34 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCA416A4CE; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:32:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B174143D39; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:32:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECE91291F2; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:32:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31412-10; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:32:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-224-186-245.eastlink.ca [24.224.186.245]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4FF12B13D; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:32:31 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 30FC7390CD; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:32:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301D438556; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:32:31 -0400 (AST) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:32:31 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Dan Nelson In-Reply-To: <20050209050328.GA78932@dan.emsphone.com> Message-ID: <20050209011528.X94338@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20050208231208.B94338@ganymede.hub.org> <20050209002232.B94338@ganymede.hub.org> <20050209050328.GA78932@dan.emsphone.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vinum in 4.x poor performer? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:32:34 -0000 On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Dan Nelson wrote: > Details on the array's performance, I think. Software RAID5 will > definitely have poor write performance (logging disks solve that > problem but vinum doesn't do that), but should have excellent read > rates. From this output, however: > >> systat -v output help: >> 4 users Load 4.64 5.58 5.77 > >> Proc:r p d s w Csw Trp Sys Int Sof Flt >> 24 9282 949 8414***** 678 349 8198 > >> 54.6%Sys 0.2%Intr 45.2%User 0.0%Nice 0.0%Idl > >> Disks da0 da1 da2 da3 da4 pass0 pass1 >> KB/t 5.32 9.50 12.52 16.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 >> tps 23 2 4 3 1 0 0 >> MB/s 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 >> % busy 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 > > , it looks like your disks aren't being touched at all. You are doing > over 99999 syscalls/second, though, which is mighty high. The 50% Sys > doesn't look good either. You may have a runaway process doing some > syscall over and over. If this is not an MPSAFE syscall (see > /sys/kern/syscalls.master ), it will also prevent other processes from > making non-MPSAFE syscalls, and in 4.x that's most of them. Wow, that actually pointed me in the right direction, I think ... I just killed an http process that was using alot of CPU, and syscalls drop'd down to a numeric value again ... I'm still curious as to why this only seem sto affect my Dual-Xeon box though :( Thanks ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664