From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 06:56:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE8216A4CE for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from digitalme.com (mail.digitalme.com [193.97.97.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC0C43D1F for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:56:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkt@digitalme.com) Received: from dkt [61.10.7.113] by digitalme.com with NIMS ModWeb Module; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:55:39 +0800 From: Dung Patrick To: des@des.no, Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:55:39 +0800 X-Mailer: NIMS ModWeb Module X-Sender: dkt MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1076424939.b11c4040dkt@digitalme.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="BIG5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: [call for helpers!] Tuning for the Beaver Challenge X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:56:20 -0000 Thanks for comment. > - don't use apm or acpi on 4.x There will be no benefit in terms of performance using acpi on 4.x. And apm is just unnecessary. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling Smrgrav) To: Dung Patrick Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:27:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [call for helpers!] Tuning for the Beaver Challenge Dung Patrick writes: > For those optionts CPU_FASTER_5X86_FPU through CPU_UPGRADE_HW_CACHE, > it is suggested by an user in the forum. I would like to see the > comments from the mailing list. If those options are dangerous, then > don't use them. CPU_FASTER_5X86_FPU is not likely to have any positive impact on performance, and fairly likely to render the system unbootable. CPU_UPGRADE_HW_CACHE has absolutely no effect on non-PC98 systems. further comments - - symlink /usr/{src,obj,ports} to /slow/{src,obj,ports} where /slow is a filesystem placed on the outside edge of the disk (to free up space near the spindle for the filesystems actually used by the benchmark) - find out what file system the Linux people are using. if they are using ext2fs or ext3fs, mount your filesystems async. - most of what you put in sysctl.conf is completely irrelevant. the rest needs to be tuned according to the actual needs of the benchmark. - you should not tune kern.maxfiles etc. unless the benchmark actually hits those limits. increasing these numbers reduces the amount of kernel memory available for other purposes. btw, maxfiles and maxfilesperproc are tunable at run time. - most of what you put in make.conf is bogus. just use CPUTYPE ?=3D pentiumpro CFLAGS =3D -O -pipe COPTFLAGS =3D -O -pipe - NOPROFILE has absolutely no impact on performance (except that it shortens 'make world' a little) - you *must* use -CURRENT and not 5.2 as the latter has issues with the aac driver. - don't use apm or acpi on 4.x. - regarding jdk 1.4.2, just use the linux version (and make sure to mount linprocfs). I very much doubt you'll notice a difference in performance. - mysql buffer and cache sizes etc. should imho be the same on all test systems. - some of the "papers" you reference ([3] and [4]) contain more incorrect and dangerous information than useful advice. DES -- Dag-Erling Smrgrav - des@des.no _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"