From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 15 06:43:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC1216A46B for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:43:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sugarfreemonkey@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 9E48E13C45B for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:43:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sugarfreemonkey@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so851851nfb for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:43:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=eJR7GsFBBI+e+Oce5WHW58f5sDzRDwlL1qIbSW042TbZ1DW+obH2AXAIFSM+KGuhW6MkzjVT2nInWHA5qlWjxSdd0fzIbuDMDxGofQRyOzyvIG5SVDGaEyaLIf60ekO0i6yyAdcWY6AKtvrQsCM3RY34PIHmBWECWHRS8gbDlmM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=kYZUJHwWVTZQdiyYy7fI/dIcKgIuKaAafJ3GNZXSwb7r0McNmJ9Z4RydMDO5KHoIK+RhSf1l/ddEQWjS+72tgkkR/RC1Ez2+1WG0snLpDRipUvXPAo0ad3HkezHFzPsuGcHWS50p+o3ecX4grD11TJQH8lKtLe4k5uAo2IrH2bk= Received: by 10.78.172.20 with SMTP id u20mr35791hue.1187158542148; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.171.12 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1fc8a2a60708142315w75cabe21tdd3738d32bcfa569@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:15:42 +0800 From: "Nex Mon" To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: questions on nonsleepable lock X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:43:25 -0000 Hello All, Can someone point me out or explain the technical details of this kernel panic: sleeping thread (tid 100093, pid 2676) owns nonsleepable lock panic: sleeping thread -- -- Is this caused by incorrect use of mutex or semaphores? Is this related to kernel scheduling? Can this be addressed at the user process? I've tried looking throught the freebsd mailing list archives and documentations but coudn't find a real good answer to solve or prevent this problem. Im using freebsd 6.1 with SMP enabled on a Xeon dual core hardware. The system has several busy applications running, But the load average is very minimal, around 8.55 and no process hogging the CPU. So I expect my system should be running smoothly without in problem. I appreciate any help. Thanks a lot, Mon From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 15 15:48:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF73016A417; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:48:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cracauer@koef.zs64.net) Received: from koef.zs64.net (koef.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4817613C46A; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:48:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cracauer@koef.zs64.net) Received: from koef.zs64.net (koef.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by koef.zs64.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7FFc1A9030928; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:38:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from cracauer@koef.zs64.net) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by koef.zs64.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l7FFc0HB030927; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:38:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cracauer) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:38:00 -0400 From: Martin Cracauer To: Johan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6m?= Message-ID: <20070815153800.GA28807@cons.org> References: <7A201B4E-9B61-4074-93B9-42BD23B35AA9@stromnet.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7A201B4E-9B61-4074-93B9-42BD23B35AA9@stromnet.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Single Core2Duo Quadcore vs. two dualcore Xeon? X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:48:30 -0000 Johan Strm wrote on Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:41:13PM +0200: > Hello > > I'm in the process of purchasing a new server. I'm currently looking > at two Supermicro based options, one with a Core 2 Duo Q6600 Quadcore > 2.4GHz 2x4MB (on a PDSMi+ board) , and another with two Xeon 5110 > dualcore 1.6GHz 4MB (on a X7DVL-i board). Well, the 2.4 GHz will be faster than the 1.6 Ghz :-) I'll assume for the rest of this mail you compare equal speed processors. > Both configurations would have 4GB (2x2Gb) memory (to begin with, 4 > slots on the boards so max 8GB), and I'm thinking about 4x 500GB > disks in a raid10 config on a 3Ware 9550SX. > > What my question is, from the performance point of view, what would > be best? Two dualcores or a single quadcore? There's two dies inside these Quad chips anyway, and everything goes through the same northbridge and memory controller even in the 2-CPU soltuion. The performance difference is almost NIL given same clockspeed and same memory speed. > I'm thinking about > memory bandwidth and such... The FB-DIMMs are bashed by some for high latency and maybe that's true if you use all slots. Personally I couldn't observe this, 667 MHz FB-DIMMs perform about as 667 MHz unregistered for me. However, the 775 platform allows you to either buy 800 MHz memory, or even overclock memory, so potentially you get much more memory bandwidth if you require it. On the other hand, the better 5xxx Xeons had 1333 MHz FSB for longer and I think the Q6600 is still 1066. Doesn't do much in real-world performance either, though. > Bus bandwitdh (to ethernet and disks)... That depends on the busses on the board. Typically you'll get PCI-X on socket 771 boards but very rarely socket 775 boards have any. > Looking from the upgrade point of view I guess two dualcores can be > replaced with two quadcores, but on the other hand, if that will be > necessary then another box is probably a better solution... The dual 771 platform also allow much more memory. I find 8 GB to be very tight these days. > Is there any known problems with FreeBSD and these stuff? From what > I've understood Supermicro is pretty FreeBSD-friendly and should work > fine... Supermicro has nothing to do with any of this, it's all integrated into the chipset and some single chips on the board. But yes, the Intel chipsets are as FreeBSD-friendly as it gets. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/ From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 12:41:43 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B9616A418 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:41:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johan@stromnet.se) Received: from av10-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (av10-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1279713C461 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:41:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johan@stromnet.se) Received: by av10-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6AD01384AC; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.92]) by av10-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545FD3849D; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from phomca.stromnet.se (90-224-172-102-no129.tbcn.telia.com [90.224.172.102]) by smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DDF37E42; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phomca.stromnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C9FB826; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stromnet.se Received: from phomca.stromnet.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (phomca.stromnet.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtCWgPLwSeps; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.28.1.102] (jstrom-mb.stromnet.se [172.28.1.102]) by phomca.stromnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C3FB824; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:48 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20070815153800.GA28807@cons.org> References: <7A201B4E-9B61-4074-93B9-42BD23B35AA9@stromnet.se> <20070815153800.GA28807@cons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <4835BBD0-5FA9-4DE3-A60D-B7D04628B229@stromnet.se> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:46 +0200 To: Martin Cracauer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Single Core2Duo Quadcore vs. two dualcore Xeon? X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:41:43 -0000 On Aug 15, 2007, at 17:38 , Martin Cracauer wrote: > Johan Strm wrote on Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:41:13PM +0200: >> Hello >> >> I'm in the process of purchasing a new server. I'm currently looking >> at two Supermicro based options, one with a Core 2 Duo Q6600 Quadcore >> 2.4GHz 2x4MB (on a PDSMi+ board) , and another with two Xeon 5110 >> dualcore 1.6GHz 4MB (on a X7DVL-i board). > > Well, the 2.4 GHz will be faster than the 1.6 Ghz :-) Very true :) > > The FB-DIMMs are bashed by some for high latency and maybe that's true > if you use all slots. Personally I couldn't observe this, 667 MHz > FB-DIMMs perform about as 667 MHz unregistered for me. > > However, the 775 platform allows you to either buy 800 MHz memory, or > even overclock memory, so potentially you get much more memory > bandwidth if you require it. Overclocking a server doesnt seem like a good idea, for desktop its one thing but I'll rather keep my servers stable and secure than a little faster > > The dual 771 platform also allow much more memory. I find 8 GB to be > very tight these days. Yeah, from what I've understood thats the "strong" thing with FB- DIMM... Able to take much more memory.. The Xeon Quad core just got a major price reduction though, so now I'm looking at a dual quad xeon (with 5320, 1.68Ghz or 5330 2.0GHz) instead... The "default" mobo at the supplier (www.mullet.se) uses the X7DVL-i board, which takes 6 FB-DIMMs on two channels (max out at 16 gig).. But I'm thinking about getting the upgrade mobo instead, X7BDE, with 8 slots on 4 channels with max 32GB (and also full KVM features in the IPMI slot..) But I'm curious if this kind of platform will ever be able to use all this? Disk access, memory bus & cpu etc.. lets asume I max this system in the future with 32 gigs of mem and 8 2ghz cores.. Will I ever be able to use that much with a raid5 (or 10, whats the lists opinion on this? 5 or 10?) config on a PCI-X slot? I think the disks will be the limiting factor before the PCI-X is maxed out though.. But realistically, for a php,mysql,apache,java etc machine with a number of jails, i wonder if I will ever be able to use this much power or if I should aim lower and if the box gets too loaded I'll get another one.. Thanks for answers! :) Johan From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 15:55:58 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DB216A46B; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:55:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johan@stromnet.se) Received: from av9-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (av9-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DCE313C45B; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:55:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johan@stromnet.se) Received: by av9-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 90E7138417; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.101]) by av9-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619F737F95; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from phomca.stromnet.se (90-224-172-102-no129.tbcn.telia.com [90.224.172.102]) by smtp3-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DB037E6C; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phomca.stromnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB82CB826; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:54 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stromnet.se Received: from phomca.stromnet.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (phomca.stromnet.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id myiSSUbyAlCb; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.28.1.102] (jstrom-mb.stromnet.se [172.28.1.102]) by phomca.stromnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3681B824; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:51 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20070816152050.GA34616@cons.org> References: <7A201B4E-9B61-4074-93B9-42BD23B35AA9@stromnet.se> <20070815153800.GA28807@cons.org> <4835BBD0-5FA9-4DE3-A60D-B7D04628B229@stromnet.se> <20070816152050.GA34616@cons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <49E780C3-8AD7-4B59-96E7-FEAF05370E62@stromnet.se> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:55:50 +0200 To: Martin Cracauer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Single Core2Duo Quadcore vs. two dualcore Xeon? X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:55:58 -0000 On Aug 16, 2007, at 17:20 , Martin Cracauer wrote: > >> The Xeon Quad core just got a major price reduction though, so now >> I'm looking at a dual quad xeon (with 5320, 1.68Ghz or 5330 2.0GHz) >> instead... > > You still have to weight whether there is any application that you > need that is not multithreaded. Well the most load (at least from the current situation) will probably be mysql, and apache with mod_php. And that should be pretty multithreaded.. > >> The "default" mobo at the supplier (www.mullet.se) uses the X7DVL-i >> board, which takes 6 FB-DIMMs on two channels (max out at 16 gig).. > > That math doesn't play. Thats what the specs says.. 6 dimm sockets, altough it actually doesnt say anything about number of channels, that was from Mullets site. mobo spec says 16 gig max. > >> But I'm thinking about getting the upgrade mobo instead, X7BDE, with >> 8 slots on 4 channels with max 32GB (and also full KVM features in >> the IPMI slot..) >> >> But I'm curious if this kind of platform will ever be able to use all >> this? Disk access, memory bus & cpu etc.. lets asume I max this >> system in the future with 32 gigs of mem and 8 2ghz cores.. Will I >> ever be able to use that much with a raid5 (or 10, whats the lists >> opinion on this? 5 or 10?) config on a PCI-X slot? > > Much of ... what? > > I can't parse this sentence. Hehe.. I'll give it another try :) If I push the system to the max cpu/memory wise, will I ever make any use of 8cores each 2Ghz? Memory can always be used I guess.. > > For a pure fileserver all this is overkill. Oh yes, no this is not a fileserver. Mainly web hosting (combined mysql/php) > >> But realistically, for a php,mysql,apache,java etc machine with a >> number of jails, i wonder if I will ever be able to use this much >> power or if I should aim lower and if the box gets too loaded I'll >> get another one.. > > The moment php and Java are involved you are not strictly disk-bound > anymore :-) Very true.. It would be the mysql processes that would be limited. Johan From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 17:24:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70AD16A418 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:24:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from g.mirov@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.236]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B4413C46E for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:24:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from g.mirov@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i29so248330wxd for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:24:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UxIW67xHadf/LaBhBZLFTvHHl/7zX6QecG4Ic/fqN/voWE1QRnEvra9lZqp/fLtZtL3noy4ebpT2yzeN65eFsFGtdrcPFrurkdRfIFDffBUBEGuPubRSyh8YvLHEpYLoPGOaw2ej7w6aKxyklgc3V60+9DDBGnDlywLDNBRI40Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ltYSebRuGYd5CcHwc6gqFiIfzAmPxHXzpRdsgZgHqLoLrWLPEYsxgZRA/6zQg3D9y2q0Dksj3YmZfrrS0D4zLWFE/PSf+G5f0bDXm/F+vzKKmAG2NMVAUpNymaPPpmwk4R3Ims1xF4u663iILIcnUTQIvrPNPyXV6vSAlkcbx/E= Received: by 10.90.81.14 with SMTP id e14mr2907642agb.1187283610038; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.127.20 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:00:09 +0200 From: "G. Mirov" To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?=" In-Reply-To: <49E780C3-8AD7-4B59-96E7-FEAF05370E62@stromnet.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <7A201B4E-9B61-4074-93B9-42BD23B35AA9@stromnet.se> <20070815153800.GA28807@cons.org> <4835BBD0-5FA9-4DE3-A60D-B7D04628B229@stromnet.se> <20070816152050.GA34616@cons.org> <49E780C3-8AD7-4B59-96E7-FEAF05370E62@stromnet.se> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Single Core2Duo Quadcore vs. two dualcore Xeon? X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:24:30 -0000 On 8/16/07, Johan Str=F6m wrote: > Oh yes, no this is not a fileserver. Mainly web hosting (combined > mysql/php) IMO, a weaker diskless C2D server with at least 4 GB RAM for web hosting and a C2Q server with at least 4 Gb RAM for CPU intensive (mysql, php, tomc= at) processing would be a better combination because it's designed to scale as your demands increase while at the same time you wouldn't be keeping all your eggs in the same basket. When your web server starts maxing out, you can just add more RAM until it's time to add another C2D web server and loa= d balancing (once you have enough servers you could get an F5 BIG-IP). Your C2Q is not likely to max out easily, but if/when it does you won't have to worry about the cost of adding another one. As for storage RAID10 in the C2Q server would be OK at first, but in the lo= ng run I'd get a NAS solution like a NetApp NFS server. Just my $0.02 worth. G. Mirov