From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 12 07:35:38 2003 Return-Path: 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 8071816A4C0 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B081D43FF2 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:35:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id 2682980E55D; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:35:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: "'Mark Terribile'" , "'Marc Slemko'" Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:30:58 -0400 Message-ID: <008d01c3793a$7f1b8580$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 In-Reply-To: <20030911221130.43073.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:35:38 -0000 > Can you run a simple, processor/memory-intensive test > on the development machine and the Dell box? I ran ubench on both. Here's what the man page for it says: Ubench is executing rather senseless mathematical integer and floating- point calculations for 3 mins concurrently using several processes, and the result is Ubench CPU benchmark. The ratio of floating-point calcu- lations to integer is about 1:3. Ubench will spawn about 2 concurrent processes for each CPU available on the system. This ensures all avail- able raw CPU horsepower is used. Ubench is executing rather senseless memory allocation and memory to memory copying operations for another 3 mins concurrently using several processes, and the result is Ubench MEM benchmark. Does that sound mean enough? I saw your function below but I know not the ways of C. > Can you do a raw test of performance on the NFS > mounts from the two systems? (Do they use the same > read size? Do they have the same readahead setting?) Both are mounted via /etc/fstab with default options as seen below (this is our php sessions mount): 209.198.22.23:/var/sessions /sessions-on-db nfs rw 0 0 > Are you using UDP mounts on both machines? Unless that's the default, no. I'd probably be of the opinion that since the mounts are all 2-way, that possible data loss from dropped UDP packets would be unacceptable. > Under load, what does the CPU line on systat -vmstat > look like on the two machines? I ran a test on both machines by running an abusing apache benchmark on them and then taking a snapshot of the report after 800+ requests had completed. This virtually brought the production machine to a halt while the development one kept putzin' along just fine. I don't know how to interpret the results tho as I've never seen this test before. During the height of an "ab -c 100 -n 1000" test against the machine, systat -vmstat reported this on the production webserver (sorry it's gonna be ugly) 2 users Load 37.46 29.30 15.58 Sep 12 10:32 Mem:KB REAL VIRTUAL VN PAGER SWAP PAGER Tot Share Tot Share Free in out in out Act 282112 9508 719504 15852 747888 count All 532264 16048 817988 27688 pages 1538 zfod Interrupts Proc:r p d s w Csw Trp Sys Int Sof Flt 138 cow 489 total 88 33 1470 1792 4087 905 141 1691 106688 wire stray 0 275748 act stray 1 26.4%Sys 4.2%Intr 69.4%User 0.0%Nice 0.0%Idl 145200 inact stray 6 | | | | | | | | | | cache npx0 13 =============++>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 747888 free 1 fxp0 11 daefr 260 fxp1 10 Namei Name-cache Dir-cache 247 prcfr ata0 14 Calls hits % hits % react ahc0 5 13160 13103 100 pdwak ahc1 3 pdpgs atkbd0 1 Disks da0 acd0 fd0 pass0 pass1 intrn 100 clk 0 KB/t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114880 buf 128 rtc 8 tps 0 0 0 0 0 187 dirtybuf MB/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86201 desiredvnodes % busy 0 0 0 0 0 21550 numvnodes 12593 freevnodes Doing the same thing against the development server gave this: 1 users Load 23.00 8.48 3.50 Sep 12 10:26 Mem:KB REAL VIRTUAL VN PAGER SWAP PAGER Tot Share Tot Share Free in out in out Act 330304 5192 580316 11540 48904 count All 985244 9320 1510820 19436 pages Interrupts Proc:r p d s w Csw Trp Sys Int Sof Flt 22 cow 1704 total 6 128 5748 726 2700 222 456 136576 wire stray 0 336964 act stray 6 10.9%Sys 6.2%Intr 82.9%User 0.0%Nice 0.0%Idl 468416 inact stray 7 | | | | | | | | | | 42536 cache npx0 13 =====++++>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6368 free 1464 xl0 11 daefr rl0 12 Namei Name-cache Dir-cache prcfr 12 ata0 14 Calls hits % hits % react fdc0 6 15104 15040 100 pdwak 100 clk 0 428 zfod pdpgs 128 rtc 8 Disks ad0 224 ofod intrn KB/t 16.00 52 %slo-z 110928 buf tps 12 84 tfree 192 dirtybuf MB/s 0.18 68139 desiredvnodes % busy 0 37187 numvnodes 5864 freevnodes John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101