From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 2 20:33:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884411065674 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 20:33:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4629C8FC16 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 20:33:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F139E46C1C; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:33:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 20:33:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Chris In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0802291820j58a24de7wb39ebf2a2653f579@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080302203059.J31090@fledge.watson.org> References: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com> <1204302128.2126.150.camel@localhost> <3aaaa3a0802290854t639559b6if0adc4009997e9db@mail.gmail.com> <3aaaa3a0802291820j58a24de7wb39ebf2a2653f579@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:33:39 -0000 On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Chris wrote: > Ironically the latest server I got last night has a intel pro 1000 a rarity > :) > > I am just giving feedback as when I speak to people in the datacentre and > hosting business the biggest gripe with freebsd is hardware compatability, > as I adore freebsd I ignore this and work round it but its defenitly > reducing take up. > > Of course I know current re issues are getting attention which I am thankful > for, I fully understand the time and effort required to write drivers > patches etc. and have got no critisicms for the people who do this my > complaint is more focused on people claiming there is no issues its just the > hardware. It's no coincidence that Intel cards work quite well with FreeBSD, given that Intel has hired developers to make FreeBSD work well on their cards. The same goes for companies like Broadcom, Chelsio, Neterion, etc, who provide not only the necessary documentation, but also put development resources into writing and QAing drivers. Put pressure on your hardware providers to do the same thing for their hardware -- one or two people asking may not do the trick, but a few large customers beating on their sales engineers can make a big difference, and so can larger numbers of smaller customers. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 05:33:33 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13B6106566B for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:33:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from algardo@sura.ru) Received: from mail.sura.ru (mail.sura.ru [80.95.32.19]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAF98FC18 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:33:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from algardo@sura.ru) Received: from guamoko (internal.sura.ru [80.95.32.17]) by mail.sura.ru (Postfix) with SMTP id 843E9CF44 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:33:31 +0300 (MSK) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:33:31 +0300 From: Aleksey Perov To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20080303083331.f9eab113.algardo@sura.ru> In-Reply-To: <47C826E0.7070903@moneybookers.com> References: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> <47C6991E.1050502@FreeBSD.org> <01ce01c87adc$e2796720$a76c3560$@lv> <47C817B0.1040602@FreeBSD.org> <01d201c87ae4$4b902850$e2b078f0$@lv> <47C82092.5040504@FreeBSD.org> <01d301c87ae7$7e2b2550$7a816ff0$@lv> <47C826E0.7070903@moneybookers.com> Organization: JSC Volgatelecom Penza X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; i386-portbld-freebsd6.3) X-NCC-RegID: ru.penza Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Upgrade from 6.3 to 7.0: Result ->Shared object not found :) 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:33:34 -0000 Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Also you can use script(1) to log, so you can analyze the output latter. > I'm not sure how script will run, if it is started in screen > (ports/sysutils/screen) Works just fine for me: screen script portupgrade.log portupgrade -a -- Aleksey From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 06:06:34 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89104106566C; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:06:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from schitzo.solgatos.com (pool-72-87-39-191.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [72.87.39.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEAA8FC16; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:06:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from schitzo.solgatos.com (localhost.home.localnet [127.0.0.1]) by schitzo.solgatos.com (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2366Y46008469; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:06:34 -0800 Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (uucp@localhost) by schitzo.solgatos.com (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) with UUCP id m2366XDI008465; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:06:34 -0800 Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id GAA01816; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:01:35 GMT Message-Id: <200803030601.GAA01816@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:31:23 +0100." <47C93E8B.3010609@digiware.nl> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:01:35 +0000 From: Dieter Cc: Subject: Re: FBSD 1GBit router? 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:06:34 -0000 > > Hopefully there will be direct memory bus connected nic's in future. > > (HyperTransport connected nic's) > > Well that is going to be an AMD only solution, and I'm not even shure > that AMD would like to have other things than CPU's on that bus. There are FPGAs that plug into a CPU socket (for mainboards with multiple CPU sockets). There will be GPUs on the HyperTransport bus. Putting a network controller there seems a tad extreme. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 09:18:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23316106566B for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:18:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tk@webmatic.de) Received: from mx.webmatic.de (mx.webmatic.de [212.78.99.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36BA8FC17 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:18:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tk@webmatic.de) Received: from luppe.int.webmatic.de (mer.webmatic.de [217.188.193.85]) by mx.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDF2897400E for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:52:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by luppe.int.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DC95C408E for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:52:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by luppe.int.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A77D5C408F for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:52:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from luppe.int.webmatic.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luppe [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30505-08 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:52:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.168.21] (unknown [192.168.168.21]) by luppe.int.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A6D5C408E for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:52:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:52:22 +0100 From: "Thomas Krause (Webmatic)" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com> <1204302128.2126.150.camel@localhost> <3aaaa3a0802290854t639559b6if0adc4009997e9db@mail.gmail.com> <3aaaa3a0802291820j58a24de7wb39ebf2a2653f579@mail.gmail.com> <20080306013736.GD1500@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> In-Reply-To: <20080306013736.GD1500@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at webmatic.de Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:18:25 -0000 >> > > Pyun YongHyeon has fixed a lot of driver issues (i.e. re(4), bfr(4), vr(4)) > over the last few months, many are already in CURRENT or RELENG_7 (not > sure how many of them made it into 7.0-RELEASE) or posted as patches > to the current@ mailing list. My question is: which other PCI-Express GBit NIC's then Intel's are available on the market? I can't find others ... Best regards, Thomas. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 16:44:42 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB356106566C for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:44:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from schitzo.solgatos.com (pool-72-87-39-191.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [72.87.39.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15468FC17 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:44:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from schitzo.solgatos.com (localhost.home.localnet [127.0.0.1]) by schitzo.solgatos.com (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m23Gigoc013880 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:44:42 -0800 Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (uucp@localhost) by schitzo.solgatos.com (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) with UUCP id m23GifWI013876 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:44:41 -0800 Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id QAA05460; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:42:03 GMT Message-Id: <200803031642.QAA05460@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:52:22 +0100." <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:42:03 +0000 From: Dieter Subject: PCIe vs PCI (was: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7) 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:44:42 -0000 > My question is: which other PCI-Express GBit NIC's then Intel's are > available on the market? I can't find others ... "man -k pcie" on 6.2 gives: bce(4) - Broadcom NetXtreme II (BCM5706/BCM5708) PCI/PCIe Gigabit Ethernet adapter driver re(4) - RealTek 8139C+/8169/816xS/811xS/8101E PCI/PCIe Ethernet adapter driver There might be more in 7.0 but it is still downloading. :-( And there may be PCIe devices that don't show up in man -k. Is there a way to tell from dmesg or pciconf that something is PCIe rather than PCI? The onboard stuff could be either. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 17:22:15 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2231D1065673 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:22:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zbeeble@gmail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982968FC20 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zbeeble@gmail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 58so336301wri.8 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:22:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=pJ1EEcL/G9eeRu+ANz3yN1G69BC7vvxT3niv1Jv6u8w=; b=AfZph9ahW2VAnTxrLS3LdHweMmlSqkW5Y1LSF/nqE7WAXoydL6VZ7lBp6kiaRO72uAt4Z+xZp7+1BfHFwqAIfhgV+ZH4nmIH0p9PtREwZG3bE1NuNytD5x8gDA9xgiJR0sk2FmFBTeBGofdKw+I77Ikg89KqWsgbu3mue9tOVgQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=bDcCV/3brsvHFBrywxRN8kCmOpqkcPw7f0ebSa0rN3TfaVohXvAFDUoWqCKL7S8qDjaHzHaBYF7gxA0FzJAxj9FHXc5OQpinPgbPAbs12uh0KGasOCIB+TJzWa9K4auctSXFkKmdWLvElDCz8nm8AVoR1JpsYMeCGWnn9t7jNLA= Received: by 10.65.216.19 with SMTP id t19mr25935297qbq.90.1204564933370; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.149.8 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:22:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5f67a8c40803030922w2ec6455ekf9de6da6fb2e571d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:22:13 +0000 From: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" To: Dieter In-Reply-To: <200803031642.QAA05460@sopwith.solgatos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> <200803031642.QAA05460@sopwith.solgatos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PCIe vs PCI (was: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7) 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:22:15 -0000 On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Dieter wrote: > > My question is: which other PCI-Express GBit NIC's then Intel's are > > available on the market? I can't find others ... > > "man -k pcie" on 6.2 gives: AFAIK, PCIe devices show up as PCI devices to most drivers. I know that 'em' flavor drivers work fine with PCIe and that 'ath' driver also does (in this case, the ath is an 'express card' ... which I'm told is another flavor of PCIe). I think the only oddball thing about PCIe is that some flavours of PCIe can show up as a USB device rather than a PCI device. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 16:59:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E53A1065677 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:59:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7BF8FC29 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:59:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE) Received: from ironport-out-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.3.59]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTP id <0JX500HPKZ75CJF0@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from smarthost-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO smarthost.rwth-aachen.de) ([134.130.7.89]) by ironport-in-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:29 +0100 Received: from bigboss.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de (bigspace.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.181.2]) by smarthost.rwth-aachen.de (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/1) with ESMTP id m23GxTlP009030; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from haakonia.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.181.92]) by bigboss.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JWE0f-0002mM-JR; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:29 +0100 Received: by haakonia.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B3D053F433; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:28 +0100 From: Christian Brueffer In-reply-to: <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> To: "Thomas Krause (Webmatic)" Message-id: <20080303165928.GB1479@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj Content-disposition: inline X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,438,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="33699960" X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.3-STABLE X-PGP-Key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D References: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com> <1204302128.2126.150.camel@localhost> <3aaaa3a0802290854t639559b6if0adc4009997e9db@mail.gmail.com> <3aaaa3a0802291820j58a24de7wb39ebf2a2653f579@mail.gmail.com> <20080306013736.GD1500@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:46:29 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:59:31 -0000 --kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:52:22AM +0100, Thomas Krause (Webmatic) wrote: > >> > > > >Pyun YongHyeon has fixed a lot of driver issues (i.e. re(4), bfr(4), vr(= 4)) > >over the last few months, many are already in CURRENT or RELENG_7 (not > >sure how many of them made it into 7.0-RELEASE) or posted as patches > >to the current@ mailing list. >=20 > My question is: which other PCI-Express GBit NIC's then Intel's are > available on the market? I can't find others ... >=20 Googling for "pci express gigabit ethernet" gives quite a few hits. - Christian --=20 Christian Brueffer chris@unixpages.org brueffer@FreeBSD.org GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D --kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHzC5wbHYXjKDtmC0RAlXDAKDpEfRksopFBiB9RdVytozneFh/JQCfXvxY n8W1FxDguQLXKZ1khukKUQI= =wn38 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 19:57:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AEA106566C for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 19:57:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656CE8FC1B for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 19:57:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m23JvuQH088649; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:57:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m23JvthF090729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:57:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200803031957.m23JvthF090729@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:56:02 -0500 To: "Thomas Krause (Webmatic)" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> References: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com> <1204302128.2126.150.camel@localhost> <3aaaa3a0802290854t639559b6if0adc4009997e9db@mail.gmail.com> <3aaaa3a0802291820j58a24de7wb39ebf2a2653f579@mail.gmail.com> <20080306013736.GD1500@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> <47CBBC46.8080202@webmatic.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:57:57 -0000 At 03:52 AM 3/3/2008, Thomas Krause (Webmatic) wrote: >>Pyun YongHyeon has fixed a lot of driver issues (i.e. re(4), bfr(4), vr(4)) >>over the last few months, many are already in CURRENT or RELENG_7 (not >>sure how many of them made it into 7.0-RELEASE) or posted as patches >>to the current@ mailing list. > >My question is: which other PCI-Express GBit NIC's then Intel's are >available on the market? I can't find others ... I have used a few bge nics that are PCIe.... However, I suggest stick with the Intel for now. My home box has a PCIe bge nic. It works fine for my home server on RELENG_7 (Samba, nfs). bge0@pci0:2:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x167714e4 chip=0x167714e4 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Broadcom Corporation' device = 'BCM5750A1 NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet PCI Express' class = network subclass = ethernet cap 01[48] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 cap 03[50] = VPD cap 05[58] = MSI supports 8 messages, 64 bit cap 10[d0] = PCI-Express 1 endpoint bge0: mem 0xfddf0000-0xfddfffff irq 18 at device 0.0 on pci2 miibus0: on bge0 brgphy0: PHY 1 on miibus0 brgphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, 1000baseT, 1000baseT-FDX, auto bge0: Ethernet address: 00:10:18:14:15:43 bge0: [ITHREAD] ---Mike From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 22:38:59 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400D61065676 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:38:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from schitzo.solgatos.com (pool-72-87-39-191.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [72.87.39.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178798FC2D for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:38:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com) Received: from schitzo.solgatos.com (localhost.home.localnet [127.0.0.1]) by schitzo.solgatos.com (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m23McwDG017431 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:38:58 -0800 Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (uucp@localhost) by schitzo.solgatos.com (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) with UUCP id m23McwBU017427 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:38:58 -0800 Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24) id VAA08472; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:34:00 GMT Message-Id: <200803032134.VAA08472@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:42:03 GMT." Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:34:00 +0000 From: Dieter Subject: Re: PCIe vs PCI (was: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7) 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:38:59 -0000 > Is there a way to tell from dmesg or pciconf that something is > PCIe rather than PCI? The onboard stuff could be either. The secret appears to be pciconf -l -v | grep -i express device = 'BCM5750A1 NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet PCI Express' This bge(4) Broadcom chip had problems in 6.0 but works well in 6.2. The critical part for my application is not getting the maximum number of packets per second, but in not dropping any, and getting them acked rapidly. The closed source "black box" on the other end of the wire has a buggy network stack, a *way* too small transmit buffer, and generates data in real time that I have only one chance to capture. The remaining problem is that other device drivers can lock it out. For example: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=118093 From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 04:45:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C331065670; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:45:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8A68FC20; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:45:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from TEDSDSK (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m244jgwF025173; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:45:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Chris" , "Adrian Chadd" Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:46:42 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0802291820j58a24de7wb39ebf2a2653f579@mail.gmail.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]); Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:45:43 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:45:44 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Chris > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:21 PM > To: Adrian Chadd > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 > > > On 01/03/2008, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 01/03/2008, Chris wrote: > > > > > You working round what I just said. A nic should perform equally well > > > as it does in other operating systems just because its > cheaper its not > > > an excuse for buggy performance. There is also other good network > > > cards apart from intel pro 1000. I am talking about stability not > > > performance, I expect a intel pro 1000 to outperform a > realtek however > > > I expect both to be stable in terms of connectivity. I expect a > > > realtek in freebsd to perform as well as a realtek in windows and > > > linux. :) > > > > Patches please! > > > > > > Adrian > > > > > > -- > > Adrian Chadd - adrian@freebsd.org > > > > Ironically the latest server I got last night has a intel pro > 1000 a rarity :) > > I am just giving feedback as when I speak to people in the datacentre > and hosting business the biggest gripe with freebsd is hardware > compatability, as I adore freebsd I ignore this and work round it but > its defenitly reducing take up. > > Of course I know current re issues are getting attention which I am > thankful for, I fully understand the time and effort required to write > drivers patches etc. and have got no critisicms for the people who do > this my complaint is more focused on people claiming there is no > issues its just the hardware. > There aren't issues on hardware that is compatible. You can't run MacOS X on an off-the-shelf PC and nobody complains about it. You can't run Solaris for the Sparc on an Intel box but nobody complains about it. FreeBSD is not Java, it is not "write once, run anywhere" If there is any problem with FreeBSD in this respect is that it supports the poor hardware AT ALL. Of course, we can't do much about that - a code contributor who gets access to CVS can put anything they want into the FreeBSD source, and drivers are a particular problem - since few developers are going to have duplicates of the hardware, only the contributing developer really knows if his driver is solid or not. Arguably it might be better to drop support for poor hardware, then the people who had such hardware would not be tempted to run FreeBSD - thereby having a bad experience with it, and blaming FreeBSD about it. I challenge you to find an example of very high quality hardware that has a driver in FreeBSD that has a lot of problems. Yet, you can find a lot of poor quality hardware that has a FreeBSD driver with a lot of problems. That should tell you something - that the issue for the poor hardware really is "just the hardware" The people complaining about hardware compatibility need to pull their heads out. If they are buying brand new systems they are utter fools if they don't check out in advance what works and what doesen't. It's not like there's a shortage of experienced people on this list who could tell them what to buy. And if after the fact they find out their shiny new PC won't run FreeBSD - then they take it back to the retailer and exchange it for a different model. Why is this so difficult? My beef with the DNS tests was that ISC ran out and bought the hardware FIRST, -then- they started testing. This is directly contrary to every bit of advice ever given in the computer industry for the last 50 years - you select the software FIRST, -then- you buy the hardware that runs it. In short, it said far more about the incompetence of the testers than the shortcomings of the software. The people who have USED systems who are bitching about FreeBSD not being compatible with their stuff need to get over it. OK, so they didn't get a chance to select the hardware, they are using some retired Windows box that won't run the new version of Windows. So they come here and our stuff has a problem with some hardware part. Well, OK fine - how does this hurt them? Their old computer wasn't usable for Windows anymore, now was it? In short, their computer at that point was worthless - and why is it OUR responsibility to make our stuff compatible with their old computer? How does us being incompatible take anything away from them - their computer was scrap anyway. If there's a problem, well they can go to the computer junkyard and exchange their scrap computer for a different old scrap computer that has compatible parts. Ted From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 06:17:52 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3F9106566C; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:17:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Peter_Losher@isc.org) Received: from mx.isc.org (mx.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::1c]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9A98FC1B; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:17:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Peter_Losher@isc.org) Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "farside.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6544511401E; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:17:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Peter_Losher@isc.org) Received: from tardis-plosh-net-2.local (tardis.vpn.isc.org [149.20.66.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05258E60A9; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:17:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Peter_Losher@isc.org) Message-ID: <47CCE982.4060201@isc.org> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:17:38 -0800 From: Peter Losher User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8118FBA68A78A9B7DF75DE34" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on mx.isc.org Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:17:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8118FBA68A78A9B7DF75DE34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > My beef with the DNS tests was that ISC ran out and bought > the hardware FIRST, -then- they started testing. This is > directly contrary to every bit of advice ever given in > the computer industry for the last 50 years - you select > the software FIRST, -then- you buy the hardware that runs it. > In short, it said far more about the incompetence of the > testers than the shortcomings of the software. This is ridiculous. ISC is one of the most fervent pro-FreeBSD=20 companies out there (basing most of our services on the OS, and=20 contributing to the FreeBSD community including the busiest CVSup & FTP=20 servers and have FreeBSD committers on staff) I will not stand back and = watch folks on a public mailing list call us incompetent individuals=20 with a anti-FreeBSD bias. First off the final report was published last Friday at: http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/index.pl?tn=3Disc-tn-2008-1.html (the server this is served from runs FreeBSD) I was not one of the direct testers (we had a couple PhD's handling=20 that, who I know both use FreeBSD on their personal systems), but as one = of the folks who supported them in their work, I can tell you that the=20 stats we gave the FreeBSD folks were from a test sponsored by the US=20 National Science Foundation. We were mandated to use branded HW and we=20 tested several models from HP, Sun, even Iron Systems (whitebox) before=20 deciding on the HP's. The mechanism we used are all documented in the=20 paper We were also asked to test DNS performance on several OS's. The short version was 'take a standard commercial off the shelf' server=20 and see how BIND performs (esp. with DNSSEC) on it. We weren't asked to = get hardware that was perfect for Brand X OS; that wasn't part of the rem= it. (We actually use the exact same HP HW for a secondary service where we=20 host a couple of thousand zones using BIND including 30+ TLD zones. Oh=20 and it runs FreeBSD) Yes we found FreeBSD performed poorly in our initial tests. and I talked = to several folks (including rwatson and kris) about the issue. Kris had = already been working on improving performance with MySQL and PgSQL and=20 was interested in doing the same with BIND. Kris went off and hacked=20 away and right before EuroBSDcon last September asked us to re-run the=20 tests (on the same HW) using a 7.0-CURRENT snapshot, and the end results = are shown with a 33,000 query increase over 6.2-RELEASE, bring FreeBSD=20 just behind the Linux distros we tested. I know rwatson and kris have=20 continually worked on the relevent network stack issues that cover BIND, = and additional performance gains have been found since then, and working = on this issue has been a true partnership between the FreeBSD developers = and ISC. BIND isn't perfect, we admit that, we have been constantly improving=20 it's multi-CPU performance and BIND 9.4 and 9.5 are continuing in that=20 effort. We have several members of our dev team who use FreeBSD as=20 their developent platform, including a FreeBSD committer. So Ted, stop spouting this "ISC is spewing anti-FreeBSD bias" crap, it=20 flatly isn't true... Oh, and this email is coming to you via several of ISC FreeBSD MX=20 servers which resolve the freebsd.org name via caching DNS servers=20 running FreeBSD, to freebsd.org's MX server over a IPv6 tunnel supplied=20 by ISC to the FreeBSD project to help FreeBSD eat their own IPv6 dog food= =2E.. Yeah, ISC just hates FreeBSD... Best Wishes - Peter --=20 Peter_Losher@isc.org | ISC | OpenPGP 0xE8048D08 | "The bits must flow" --------------enig8118FBA68A78A9B7DF75DE34 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkfM6YcACgkQPtVx9OgEjQgzCwCffMOkdPDsWzJWMf+2KoWIYNJQ 7vMAoJ2QJbDS1XvJAGE5SlqbmXExbbPs =67TN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8118FBA68A78A9B7DF75DE34-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 06:53:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AC51065671 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:53:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tk@webmatic.de) Received: from mx.webmatic.de (mx.webmatic.de [212.78.99.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9A58FC1C for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:53:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tk@webmatic.de) Received: from luppe.int.webmatic.de (mer.webmatic.de [217.188.193.85]) by mx.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8D4D48404A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:53:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by luppe.int.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB0A5C4095 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:53:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by luppe.int.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88A45C40D3 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:53:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from luppe.int.webmatic.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luppe [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31074-04 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:53:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.168.21] (unknown [192.168.168.21]) by luppe.int.webmatic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C97D5C4095 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:53:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47CCF188.8060101@webmatic.de> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:51:52 +0100 From: "Thomas Krause (Webmatic)" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <200803031642.QAA05460@sopwith.solgatos.com> In-Reply-To: <200803031642.QAA05460@sopwith.solgatos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at webmatic.de Subject: Re: PCIe vs PCI 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:53:58 -0000 Dieter schrieb: >> My question is: which other PCI-Express GBit NIC's then Intel's are >> available on the market? I can't find others ... > > "man -k pcie" on 6.2 gives: > > bce(4) - Broadcom NetXtreme II (BCM5706/BCM5708) PCI/PCIe Gigabit Ethernet adapter driver > re(4) - RealTek 8139C+/8169/816xS/811xS/8101E PCI/PCIe Ethernet adapter driver > > There might be more in 7.0 but it is still downloading. :-( > And there may be PCIe devices that don't show up in man -k. > Is there a way to tell from dmesg or pciconf that something is > PCIe rather than PCI? The onboard stuff could be either. I don't speak from onboard cards! I speak from PCI-E cards you can plug into the PCI-E slot. E.g. in Ingram Micros online shop there are only Intel PCI-E-Cards listed. I know there are good PCI-E NIC's from Sysconnect, but I can only buy them from special dealers. Compared to PCI-NIC's - I realy don't have a big choice of PCI-E NIC's. Regards, Thomas. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 12:19:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AA91065671 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:19:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.241]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1452D8FC2A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:19:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id m63so529438hsc.11 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:19:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; 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; bh=PdVM9T3Kh8qspvdfLXVwpvraQVP9CcxvOS0zEIraOuw=; b=abQcwI0z4kf3WvRv8sKvWzd65wy5VrAfYAVJC3c6y0YD+4PaQVfJ1bJTJe/h5u50aK4Tju6+XhvqPIyHXp+taSy3THrISuPBErg2uKgoUmkeBsywapXZmO7iT3d6rQUcug3c0znN1BpJACwsRnSsY89KRdDEAGxWVEciZTxcZgQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=igFXvkEw8p5+wj1rCcBNT1OzCvfQBcCyQowpGDbVITJA6T/GP/ZipYz9E+qOTcLXuFVMeWtV9qJYMRHDwoCC4er8afBtMWAYuU7N3F9ULcN+gg9FGlVUBfnwIliU1HqbBXUmyR8FXxk3UINymRbZ6mP1rame9JP2V3tci6cXqIk= Received: by 10.100.144.18 with SMTP id r18mr2631342and.112.1204633150164; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.219.18 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:19:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0803040419w25c5ac6mc4b8b6faf4f6281a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:19:09 +0000 From: Chris To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:19:11 -0000 On 29/02/2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > Device drivers and hardware are a cooperative effort. The ideal > is a well-written device driver and well-designed hardware. > Unfortunately the reality of it appears to be that it costs > a LOT more money to hire good silicon designers than it costs > to hire good programmers - so a depressing amount of computer > hardware out there is very poor hardware, but the hardware's > shortcomings are made up by almost Herculean efforts of the > software developers. > > I should have thought the invention of the Winmodem (windows-only > modem) would have made this obvious to the general public > years ago. > > Unfortunately, the hardware vendors make a lot of effort to > conceal the crappiness of their designs and most customers > just care if the device works, they don't care if the only > way the device can work is if 60% of their system's CPU is > tied up servicing a device driver that is making up for > hardware shortcomings, so it is still rather difficult > for a customer to become informed about what is good and > what isn't - other than trial and error. > > I hardly think that the example I cited - the 3com 3c905 PCI > network adapter - is an example of poor support in FreeBSD. > The FreeBSD driver for the 509 worked perfectly well when > the 309 used a Lucent-built ASIC. When 3com decided to > save 50 cents a card by switching to Broadcom for the > ASIC manufacturing, the FreeBSD driver didn't work very > well with those cards - nor did the Linux driver for that > matter. This clearly wasn't a driver problem it was a > problem with Broadcom not following 3com's design specs > properly. 3com did the only thing they could - which > was to put a hack into the Windows driver - but of course, > nobody bothered telling the Linux or FreeBSD community > about it, we had to find out by dicking around with the > driver code. > > If datacenters want to purchase poor hardware and run their > stuff on it, that's their choice. Just because a piece > of hardware is "mainstream" doesen't mean it's good. It > mainly means it's inexpensive. > > Ted > Ted I never meant mainstream = good but I did mean mainstream cannot be ignored and written off if something is mainstream it is for a reason if the hardware was so poor then I am sure complaints would be so high it would no longer be mainstream. Not sure if you understanding me I am most defenitly not saying I expect a cheap network card to perform on par with a premium card. I am merely saying ideally it should perform and be as stable as it is in other operating systems and if it isnt then look at what can be improved rather than just saying go buy a new peice of kit. Is freebsd a operating system for use on premium hardware only? as that what it feels like I am reading sometimes. Now on the bind tests if the hardware used on both linux and freebsd was the exact same spec hardware then blaming the hardware is invalid as its apple vs apple. Obviously if the linux tests were done on superior hardware then its apple vs orange and the tests are invalidated. Chris From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 18:17:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93862106566C for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:17:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alan.bryan@yahoo.com) Received: from web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.38.83]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28F188FC16 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:17:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alan.bryan@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 40395 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Mar 2008 17:50:23 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=e+EEyTPCGUdz1zGeWSO/4OKPtS0o4TW0evVs5wAojsT2/Py5nic4++5i+3b3AnbVJwgd5I1RAhRctPoeZBadFTa8p4nivpcyhTz4nFsPLuPEWcg4NC1iyPSG1NAZD2lQ6ZaBSO7BIJQoNSvNisSe9Ft9Oe4l4C4h/dPezhMW+9c=; X-YMail-OSG: ELtI9foVM1lop89YSPHYGahfZMc5zDg8bRv1TAtfiZoMMzSjwr72p77YiK8q8GmoK60.f83XNq7_6i9FoDSjDgNG0LxQ_N7wmyCRuiGznQMI2CSzr_M- Received: from [76.91.101.96] by web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:50:23 PST Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:50:23 -0800 (PST) From: alan bryan To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Subject: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:17:04 -0000 Hi, I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both 4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance for writes is just plain horrible. Something is obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array. According to 3dm2 the cache is on. I even tried setting The StorSave preference to "Performance" with no real benefit. There seems to be something really wrong with disk performance. Here's the results from bonnie: File './Bonnie.2551', size: 104857600 Writing with putc()...done Rewriting...done Writing intelligently...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done... -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 100 9989 4.8 6739 1.0 18900 7.8 225973 98.5 1914662 99.9 177210.7 259.7 Any ideas? Anybody have one of these that's working with FreeBSD 7? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 19:15:03 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55A01065670 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:15:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lamont@cluepon.com) Received: from norm.meatclown.com (norm.meatclown.com [208.96.51.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978788FC25 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:15:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lamont@cluepon.com) Received: from lamont-lucass-macbook-pro.local (c-71-202-123-129.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.123.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by norm.meatclown.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17BB840A3; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:47:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47CD9954.5040105@cluepon.com> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:47:48 -0800 From: Lamont Lucas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alan bryan References: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:15:03 -0000 alan bryan wrote: > Hi, > > I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the > Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both > 4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance > for writes is just plain horrible. Something is > obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. Hello Alan. Have you ever used this card with any other OS? I have about 6 of them running under linux and I too get horrible write performance from them. After several days of tuning and research, I've concluded that the cards are just stinkers reguardless of what OS they are running. That seems to be the consensus if you google 3ware write performance. I've put them in 64 and 32 bit slots, various speeds and with various drives. I had an older 3ware card running under FreeBSD 6.2 that would give decent read performance in a raid0 configuration but terrible write performance. I performed no tuning on that setup, as my application was mostly read and it was "good enough" for the time. Not terribly helpful, I admit, but I wanted you to at least think about it being the card rather than the OS. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 19:24:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53549106566B for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:24:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C758FC1F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:24:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m24JOSF2009559; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:24:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m24JOOt0096588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:24:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200803041924.m24JOOt0096588@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:24:34 -0500 To: alan bryan , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:24:29 -0000 At 12:50 PM 3/4/2008, alan bryan wrote: >Hi, > >I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the >Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both >4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance >for writes is just plain horrible. Something is >obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. Not sure about 7.0, but I have this card on a 6.3 box. Doing something simple like % cat /dev/zero > big % iostat -c 100 tty da0 pass0 cpu tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id 0 0 53.92 6 0.31 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 0 0 96 3 197 4.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 100 1 64 127.94 1100 137.42 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 49 5 46 0 63 128.00 1012 126.50 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 34 5 59 0 63 128.00 969 121.13 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 30 2 66 0 62 127.85 758 94.67 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 26 4 69 0 61 127.82 1252 156.25 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 50 8 42 0 63 127.59 542 67.59 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 26 1 72 0 61 127.66 1026 127.90 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 47 5 49 1 87 127.56 513 63.97 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 19 4 77 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 100 Shows pretty OK write performance. % dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/tmp/big bs=1024k count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes transferred in 8.646134 secs (121276863 bytes/sec) This is on RAID10 on 4 Segate ST380811AS drives. 3ware device driver for 9000 series storage controllers, version: 3.60.04.003 twa0: <3ware 9000 series Storage Controller> port 0xac00-0xac3f mem 0xf4000000-0xf5ffffff,0xff2ff000-0xff2fffff irq 16 at device 3.0 on pci2 twa0: [GIANT-LOCKED] twa0: INFO: (0x15: 0x1300): Controller details:: Model 9550SX-4LP, 4 ports, Firmware FE9X 3.01.01.028, BIOS BE9X 3.01.00.024 da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-3 device da0: 100.000MB/s transfers da0: 152566MB (312455168 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 19449C) I have write cache enabled and performance set for the StorSav. Its in a PCI-x slot as well. ---Mike From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 21:03:30 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806E7106566C for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:03:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from services.ipt.ru (services.ipt.ru [194.62.233.110]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7328FC1F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:03:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from bb.ipt.ru ([194.62.233.89]) by services.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1JWdiv-000HTm-QG; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:26:53 +0300 To: alan bryan References: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:25:00 +0300 In-Reply-To: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> (alan bryan's message of "Tue\, 4 Mar 2008 09\:50\:23 -0800 \(PST\)") Message-ID: <17941875@bb.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:03:30 -0000 On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:50:23 -0800 (PST) alan bryan wrote: > I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the > Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both > 4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance > for writes is just plain horrible. Something is > obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. > I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array. > According to 3dm2 the cache is on. I even tried > setting The StorSave preference to "Performance" with > no real benefit. There seems to be something really > wrong with disk performance. Here's the results from > bonnie: > File './Bonnie.2551', size: 104857600 > Writing with putc()...done > Rewriting...done > Writing intelligently...done > Reading with getc()...done > Reading intelligently...done > Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start > 'em...done...done...done... > -------Sequential Output-------- > ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per > Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- > Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec > %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU > 100 9989 4.8 6739 1.0 18900 7.8 225973 > 98.5 1914662 > 99.9 177210.7 259.7 > Any ideas? Anybody have one of these that's working > with FreeBSD 7? I had almost the same problem. The transfer rate was less that 10Mb/s for raid-10. When a BBU arrived I thought my problems gone. Not that at once. Firstly none changed. I tested many combinatins with no avail (it lasted some hours). Then it so happed that I set StorSave "Ballanced", cache "on" and marked (by an accident) the raid for checking (or verifying... can't recall how it's named at the 3WARE BIOS). The test has began, I stopped it. Rebooted the OS. To my surprise after booting the transfer rate was quite good. BTW, the test proceeded after booting... Maybe the card did not use the cache while the battery was uncharged? Don't know (but noticed "twa0: INFO: (0x04: 0x0056): Battery charging completed:" at dmesg). Here it is now with WD RE2 1T disks: ----- 3ware device driver for 9000 series storage controllers, version: 3.70.05.001 twa0: <3ware 9000 series Storage Controller> port 0xc800-0xc8ff mem 0xf8000000-0xf9ffffff,0xfeaff000-0xfeafffff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci4 twa0: [ITHREAD] twa0: INFO: (0x04: 0x0029): Verify started: unit=0 twa0: INFO: (0x04: 0x003D): Verify paused: unit=0 twa0: INFO: (0x15: 0x1300): Controller details:: Model 9650SE-8LPML, 8 ports, Firmware FE9X 3.08.02.005, BIOS BE9X 3.08.00.002 ----- da0 at twa0 bus 0 target 0 lun 0 da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-5 device da0: 100.000MB/s transfers da0: 953632MB (1953038336 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 121571C) ----- /dev/da0s1d 902G 36G 794G 4% /space ----- btest% uname -a FreeBSD btest.ipt.ru 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #14: Mon Mar 3 18:27:26 MSK 2008 root@btest.ipt.ru:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BTEST i386 btest% sudo dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=1m count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes transferred in 5.073393 secs (206681412 bytes/sec) btest% sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/space/dd.file bs=1m count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes transferred in 5.670188 secs (184927909 bytes/sec) ----- WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 21:03:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09011065672 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:03:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from services.ipt.ru (services.ipt.ru [194.62.233.110]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFA68FC24 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:03:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from bb.ipt.ru ([194.62.233.89]) by services.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1JWdf2-000HR0-Q8; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:22:52 +0300 To: alan bryan References: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:20:59 +0300 In-Reply-To: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> (alan bryan's message of "Tue\, 4 Mar 2008 09\:50\:23 -0800 \(PST\)") Message-ID: <50101940@bb.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:03:31 -0000 On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:50:23 -0800 (PST) alan bryan wrote: > I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the > Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both > 4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance > for writes is just plain horrible. Something is > obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. > I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array. > According to 3dm2 the cache is on. I even tried > setting The StorSave preference to "Performance" with > no real benefit. There seems to be something really > wrong with disk performance. Here's the results from > bonnie: > File './Bonnie.2551', size: 104857600 > Writing with putc()...done > Rewriting...done > Writing intelligently...done > Reading with getc()...done > Reading intelligently...done > Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start > 'em...done...done...done... > -------Sequential Output-------- > ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per > Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- > Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec > %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU > 100 9989 4.8 6739 1.0 18900 7.8 225973 > 98.5 1914662 > 99.9 177210.7 259.7 > Any ideas? Anybody have one of these that's working > with FreeBSD 7? I had almost the same problem. The transfer rate was less that 10Mb/s for raid-10. When a BBU arrived I thought my problems gone. Not that at once. Firstly none changed. I tested many combinatins with no avail (it lasted some hours). Then it so happed that I set StorSave "Ballanced", cache "on" and marked (by an accident) the raid for checking (or verifying... can't recall how it's named at the 3WARE BIOS). The test has began, I stopped it. Rebooted the OS. To my surprise after booting the transfer rate was quite good. BTW, the test proceeded after booting... Maybe the card did not use the cache while the battery was uncharged? Don't know (but noticed "twa0: INFO: (0x04: 0x0056): Battery charging completed:" at dmesg). Here it is now with WD RE2 1T disks: ----- 3ware device driver for 9000 series storage controllers, version: 3.70.05.001 twa0: <3ware 9000 series Storage Controller> port 0xc800-0xc8ff mem 0xf8000000-0xf9ffffff,0xfeaff000-0xfeafffff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci4 twa0: [ITHREAD] twa0: INFO: (0x04: 0x0029): Verify started: unit=0 twa0: INFO: (0x04: 0x003D): Verify paused: unit=0 twa0: INFO: (0x15: 0x1300): Controller details:: Model 9650SE-8LPML, 8 ports, Firmware FE9X 3.08.02.005, BIOS BE9X 3.08.00.002 ----- da0 at twa0 bus 0 target 0 lun 0 da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-5 device da0: 100.000MB/s transfers da0: 953632MB (1953038336 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 121571C) ----- /dev/da0s1d 902G 36G 794G 4% /space ----- btest% uname -a FreeBSD btest.ipt.ru 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #14: Mon Mar 3 18:27:26 MSK 2008 root@btest.ipt.ru:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BTEST i386 btest% sudo dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=1m count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes transferred in 5.073393 secs (206681412 bytes/sec) btest% sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/space/dd.file bs=1m count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes transferred in 5.670188 secs (184927909 bytes/sec) ----- WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 21:08:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F24106566C for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:08:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from services.ipt.ru (services.ipt.ru [194.62.233.110]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C848FC1E for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:08:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from bb.ipt.ru ([194.62.233.89]) by services.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1JWeN9-000Htr-RA; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:08:27 +0300 To: alan bryan References: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <17941875@bb.ipt.ru> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:06:33 +0300 In-Reply-To: <17941875@bb.ipt.ru> (Boris Samorodov's message of "Tue\, 04 Mar 2008 23\:25\:00 +0300") Message-ID: <42900454@bb.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:08:29 -0000 On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:25:00 +0300 Boris Samorodov wrote: > Here it is now with WD RE2 1T disks: Sorry, these are just plain WD-JS 0.5T disks here. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 5 18:09:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140A71065676 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:09:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alan.bryan@yahoo.com) Received: from web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.39.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE9318FC28 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:09:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alan.bryan@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 86787 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Mar 2008 18:09:10 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=3wUrFLGB2xRBah5x1HebeP/8yuUkjChXqfE/motQottYXeygy4LuDcX66ScRAx8JPgVv5Iql8JBosdizmMbQFHDQATVxuMqOjol6o0PMxdONS3eIx0TPs3HGg5h4OlLCJLFwvFGQHQKGzjsRuLK6VuSriHXnroaIpM8rYs3k4kU=; X-YMail-OSG: 0BffB9wVM1lWeOuM8QHllSFD6u1OjlpwYb7yoQEwqokFWT2_JyPLOHF7Q7RsK6QY17SjEy6iMMnIyCKSD.DbsWnY Received: from [76.91.101.96] by web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:09:09 PST Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:09:09 -0800 (PST) From: alan bryan To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <96374.85181.qm@web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:09:11 -0000 --- alan bryan wrote: > Hi, > > I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the > Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both > 4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance > for writes is just plain horrible. Something is > obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. > > I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array. > > According to 3dm2 the cache is on. I even tried > setting The StorSave preference to "Performance" > with > no real benefit. There seems to be something really > wrong with disk performance. Here's the results > from > bonnie: OK - so, I ran the server for about 24 hrs while it did its battery test. After that it automatically turned on it's write cache. So, even though initially 3dm2 was reporting the cache was on I guess it must not have been. I ran some more tests: Version 1.93d ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP server 16G 530 99 120160 23 28207 8 903 99 109688 16 518.7 18 Latency 18651us 541ms 447ms 11461us 271ms 66793us Version 1.93d ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- server -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 20737 34 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 20429 37 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ Latency 146ms 22us 101ms 150ms 24us 31us 1.93c,1.93d,server,1,1204745494,16G,,530,99,120160,23,28207,8,903,99,109688,16,518.7,18,16,,,,,20737,34,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,20429,37,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,18651us,541ms,447ms,11461us,271ms,66793us,146ms,22us,101ms,150ms,24us,31us And my original test again: Writing with putc()...done Rewriting...done Writing intelligently...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done... -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 100 154436 71.4 86016 10.8 104301 13.7 226587 100.0 1934776 101.6 173626.2 261.3 >dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/dd.file bs=1m count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes transferred in 7.814102 secs (134190213 bytes/sec) So, it's better but am I still getting what I should be seeing? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 5 20:56:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E996106566B; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:56:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mav@mavhome.dp.ua) Received: from cmail.optima.ua (cmail.optima.ua [195.248.191.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229648FC2D; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:56:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mav@mavhome.dp.ua) X-Spam-Flag: SKIP X-Spam-Yversion: Spamooborona 1.7.0 Received: from [212.86.226.226] (account mav@alkar.net HELO [192.168.3.2]) by cmail.optima.ua (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPA id 86636775; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:56:21 +0200 Message-ID: <47CEFAE0.9000402@mavhome.dp.ua> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:56:16 +0200 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Evans References: <1201839789.00018590.1201827602@10.7.7.3> <1201836184.00018598.1201823403@10.7.7.3> <1201868581.00018705.1201855203@10.7.7.3> <1201904582.00018976.1201893001@10.7.7.3> <1201965806.00019169.1201955401@10.7.7.3> <1201958583.00019173.1201947005@10.7.7.3> <1202001786.00019395.1201991402@10.7.7.3> <1202005381.00019409.1201992602@10.7.7.3> <1202095383.00019854.1202083801@10.7.7.3> <1202113382.00019874.1202101201@10.7.7.3> In-Reply-To: <1202113382.00019874.1202101201@10.7.7.3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:52:26 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Alexander Motin , Robert Watson , Julian Elischer , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Memory allocation performance 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: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:56:25 -0000 Bruce Evans wrote: > Try profiling it one another type of CPU, to get different performance > counters but hopefully not very different stalls. If the other CPU doesn't > stall at all, put another black mark against P4 and delete your copies of > it :-). I have tried to profile the same system with the same load on different hardware: - was Pentium4 2.8 at ASUS MB based on i875G chipset, - now PentiumD 3.0 at Supermicro PDSMi board based on E7230 chipset. The results are completely different. The problem has gone: 0.03 0.04 538550/2154375 ip_forward [11] 0.03 0.04 538562/2154375 em_get_buf [32] 0.07 0.08 1077100/2154375 ng_package_data [26] [15]1.8 0.14 0.15 2154375 uma_zalloc_arg [15] 0.06 0.00 1077151/3232111 generic_bzero [22] 0.03 0.00 538555/538555 mb_ctor_mbuf [60] 0.03 0.00 2154375/4421407 critical_exit [63] 0.02 0.01 538554/2154376 m_freem [42] 0.02 0.01 538563/2154376 mb_free_ext [54] 0.04 0.03 1077100/2154376 ng_free_item [48] [30]0.9 0.08 0.06 2154376 uma_zfree_arg [30] 0.03 0.00 2154376/4421407 critical_exit [63] 0.00 0.01 538563/538563 mb_dtor_pack [82] 0.01 0.00 2154376/4421971 critical_enter [69] So probably it was some hardware related problem. First MB has video integrated to chipset without any dedicated memory, possibly it affected memory performance in some way. On the first system there were such messages on boot: Mar 3 23:01:20 swamp kernel: acpi0: reservation of 0, a0000 (3) failed Mar 3 23:01:20 swamp kernel: acpi0: reservation of 100000, 3fdf0000 (3) failed Mar 3 23:01:20 swamp kernel: agp0: on vgapci0 Mar 3 23:01:20 swamp kernel: agp0: detected 892k stolen memory Mar 3 23:01:20 swamp kernel: agp0: aperture size is 128M , can they be related? -- Alexander Motin From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 5 23:04:51 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0688A1065673; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87468FC19; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:04:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id D7AC48C083; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:31:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:31:51 -0600 To: tedm@toybox.placo.com Message-ID: <20080305223151.GA8626@soaustin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:33:51 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, kris@freebsd.org, oliver@akephalos.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, linimon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:04:51 -0000 > > * I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC > > configuration but have not yet found the cause. > It's called "Anti-FreeBSD bias". You won't find anything. If this is true, please try to explain to me the following: - ISC hosts 5 Netra 1s that comprise most of our sparc64 package build cluster. They are allowing us to add 4 more next week. - ISC hosts 3 amd64 machines for our amd64 package build cluster. - ISC used to host 3 alpha machines, until we retired them. - ISC hosts ftp4.freebsd.org, which is one of the 2 machines that the address ftp.freebsd.org rotors to. This is an extremely high- bandwidth machine. - ISC hosts several other development machines (I am not aware of all the exact ones). All of this has been in place for years, with the space, power, and cooling all donated for free. Kris and others have been doing a tremendous amount of work over the past 2 years to identify and fix performance problems in FreeBSD. There have been literally hundreds of regression tests run, resulting in a large number of cycles of commit/test. Sometimes the commits do what we expect, sometimes no. Lather, rinse, repeat. The difference in performance between 6.3R and 7.0R is primarily due to all this effort. ISC's re-tests seems to confirm the improvements. The current speculation is that the difference in the measurements we're seeing could well be due to our drivers. If so, let's identify and fix the problems. Otherwise, let's try to understand whether there are any meaningful differences in the way the tests are being run. Casting aspersions on someone's methodology or motives just because you (or I) don't like the results is merely nonsense. AFAICT ISC's business model primarily consists of them selling the ability of bind to perform under load. That's the variable they have to optimize for. Let's hope that we are part of helping them to do just that. mcl From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 6 02:07:38 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEFD106566C for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 02:07:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alan.bryan@yahoo.com) Received: from web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.39.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74E278FC1D for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 02:07:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alan.bryan@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 56752 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Mar 2008 02:07:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Rs7GnHgYXhlHlQEVvo9rozuO+tbdGU32zkimJ0qoIg4tbqNFn6TI/FTNoZhQXZXDwsinuQQvtCKiS2eRSTD+nwby467bn2j32ZoqxW23AcYamQGbV64WM0n05RYks56zx0I0ysWT6LyTKdGLSo2ZRhHMsAXnSp/L4UwVifXpgQw=; X-YMail-OSG: 1zdkpiEVM1mBQcV4qAv7xct.gosg6csRT77kMrBG Received: from [76.91.101.96] by web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:07:36 PST Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:07:36 -0800 (PST) From: alan bryan To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <96374.85181.qm@web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <857138.52972.qm@web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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, 06 Mar 2008 02:07:38 -0000 --- alan bryan wrote: > > --- alan bryan wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with > the > > Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried > both > > 4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware > performance > > for writes is just plain horrible. Something is > > obviously wrong but I'm not sure what. > > > > I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array. > > > > According to 3dm2 the cache is on. I even tried > > setting The StorSave preference to "Performance" > > with > > no real benefit. There seems to be something > really > > wrong with disk performance. So, all of this seems to be due to the Battery unit. What seems to be happening is that if the battery isn't fully charged the write cache get disabled. So, when I was testing and removing the card, changing cabling, etc... with the server powered off the battery would get ever so slightly discharged and then when booting back up the server has the cache off until it gets topped back up again. Thus, I was seeing weird inconsistent results all over the place. I had to move the BBU and disconnected it for a few minutes and then turned the server back on. When it came back up 3dm2 reporting that the BBU was charging and that write cache was off. Once recharged (15 min or so) the cache was turned back on. This could be really bad in a loaded server if you have to down it for a few min service window and then boot back up and the write cache is then off. I found that I could log into 3dm2 and change the StorSave profile to "Performance" which would then enable the cache again (it ignores whether you have the BBU). Then once the battery is charged you can go back to "Balanced" profile. Guess the lesson learned is make sure the server has been powered up for 24hrs and battery fully charged before doing any tests against this 3ware card. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 6 09:54:03 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFB0106566C for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:54:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD068FC13 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:54:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JXCnW-0005g7-Dl for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:53:58 +0000 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:53:58 +0000 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:53:58 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:57:40 +0100 Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <497790.39526.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <96374.85181.qm@web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigED6EEFE150363165756F6784" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) In-Reply-To: <96374.85181.qm@web50511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Sender: news Subject: Re: 7.0-Release and 3ware 9550SXU w/BBU - horrible write performance 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, 06 Mar 2008 09:54:03 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigED6EEFE150363165756F6784 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable alan bryan wrote: > --- alan bryan wrote: >> I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array. > Version 1.93d ------Sequential Output------ > --Sequential Input- --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per > Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > server 16G 530 99 120160 23 28207 8 903 99 > 109688 16 518.7 18 > So, it's better but am I still getting what I should > be seeing? =20 It seems about right - twice the performance of a single drive is OK for a 4-drive RAID10. --------------enigED6EEFE150363165756F6784 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHz8AUldnAQVacBcgRAmMqAJ979IGo1/fq1hD6Qtd0oScp8gCOIACeIUwN 92Ne0vr71sziKR5EQYqK9T8= =Evwg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigED6EEFE150363165756F6784-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 7 12:11:22 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E2D106566C; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:11:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D31D8FC25; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:11:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from TEDSDSK (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m27CBKC1060227; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 04:11:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Peter Losher" Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 04:12:23 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 In-Reply-To: <47CCE982.4060201@isc.org> Importance: Normal X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]); Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:11:21 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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, 07 Mar 2008 12:11:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Losher [mailto:Peter_Losher@isc.org] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:18 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 > > > Yeah, ISC just hates FreeBSD... This final report here: ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dns_perf/ISC-TN-2008-1.pdf is LIGHTYEARS different than the draft here: http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html The draft contains the conclusion: "...We will use Linux Gentoo 2.6.20.7 for further production testing. We brought these numbers to the attention of the FreeBSD development team, and will re-test when FreeBSD 7.1 is released..." This is completely missing in the final. Added is a bunch of praise of bind on commodity hardware. And also added is the line: "...All computers in the testbed were loaded with identical copies of FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE..." which is missing in the draft. So in other words, it certainly appears that the final is 180 degrees opposite of it's discussion of FreeBSD. The draft appears to suggest to avoid it - the final appears to suggest to embrace it. So what, exactly may I ask, were you expecting after writing that draft? Everyone here to be happy? It almost seems to me like the draft was a trial balloon floated to get the FreeBSD developers to jump in and do some coding for you at the last minute. But, I'll say no more about that and turn towards the report - because it has some significant problems. I'll start with the beginning: "...We have been particularly interested in the performance of DNSSEC mechanisms within the DNS protocols and on the use of BIND as a production server for major zones..." OK, fine and good. However, the conclusion is rather different: "...Commodity hardware with BIND 9 software is fast enough by a wide margin to run large production name service..." What is going on here? This project started out as purely observational - merely interested in BIND performance - and ended up being a proof for the hypothesis that BIND is good enough to run large nameservers on commodity hardware. In short, the report is moving from an objective view to a subjective goal of proving BIND is kick-ass. It is interesting how the original draft conclusion IS NOT subjective with regards to BIND (it is with regards to FreeBSD of course) and uses the phrase "further production testing" implying that BIND is still under development, while the final report uses the language: "...open-source software and commodity hardware are up to the task of providing full-scale production name..." which definitely implies that BIND is "done" and ready for production. Another thing of interest concernes the OS. Microsoft Windows 2003 server is included in the first breaking point test. It is absent from the other tests. And the version chosen is old, old, it is NOT even Server 2003 R2, nor the RC of Server 2008 which is available. Why were the Windows test results even left in the published report at all? What purpose do they serve other than as a feel-good "bash Windows". If you really were interested in the results of testing, you would have wanted to know how BIND did under Windows for the other tests. But, as I pointed out, by the time the later tests were run the goal has stopped being the pure objective observational goal, and become the subjective "prove BIND is the best" goal. And as the Windows results for the breaking test were so low, it was an embarassment to keep bothering with it, so it was dropped. The report also suffers from NOT listing out the components of the HP servers and instead offering a link to HP. Yeah, how long is that link going to be valid? HP changes it's website and changes it's product line up as often as I change my underpants - a year from now, that product will be gone and a new reader will have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the actual server specs, and I mean the chipsets in use for the disk controller, nic card, video, etc. You know, the stuff that actually -affects- the performance of different operating systems. But the biggest hole is the report conclusion and this shift from objective, to subjective, reporting. The conclusion claims BIND is great on commodity hardware but what it ONLY has proven is that BIND is great on this one specific hardware platform running a couple specific operating systems. If you really wanted to merely objectively observe BIND on commodity hardware you should have had your testers stay out of the setup of the OS and platform. You should have called up the developers of the various operating systems you were going to use - Microsoft among them - and told them to each send in a group that would build a server to their spec. You should have merely set a maximum limit that the server could cost that was in line with commodity server hardware costs - something like $2K and it had to be name-brand, for example - and let all of the vested interest groups do their best to create a server that would run as fast as they could in those constraints. In short, if the testers are setting out to prove BIND is really powerful, they are essentially trying to write a benchmark. And the way you do that is by deliberatly pulling all the stops out to make your stuff run as lickety-split as possible - then you document the crap out of everything you did to make it run lickety-split, so that anyone else can come along, set up the stuff the same way you did, and then get the same results. Benchmarks are subjective and they are expected to be subjective - but when you write them, your admitting your testers are being subjective. In that case, there is no point in having an OS bake-off since your going to have your testers select the OS that will give the best shine to your product. The report needs to make up it's mind what it's actually trying to accomplish, objective, or subjective, reporting. Ted From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 7 16:55:08 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157FF1065673 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ender@enderzone.com) Received: from www.ksdhost.com (www.ksdhost.com [75.126.66.82]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88CD8FC27 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:55:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ender@enderzone.com) Received: (qmail 69894 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2008 10:28:27 -0600 Received: from 107.94.144.216.westtel.ky (HELO ?192.168.2.2?) (216.144.94.107) by ksdhost.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 7 Mar 2008 10:28:27 -0600 Message-ID: <47D16CDA.9090200@enderzone.com> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:27:06 -0500 From: Simon Dircks User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Peter Losher , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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, 07 Mar 2008 16:55:08 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Losher [mailto:Peter_Losher@isc.org] >> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:18 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 >> >> >> Yeah, ISC just hates FreeBSD... >> > > This final report here: > > ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dns_perf/ISC-TN-2008-1.pdf > > is LIGHTYEARS different than the draft here: > > http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html > > > The draft contains the conclusion: > > You change your underpants once a year? From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 8 18:32:32 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B545310656A0; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:32:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770778FC1D; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:32:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from TEDSDSK (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m28IWSWT019952; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:32:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Simon Dircks" Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:33:28 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <47D16CDA.9090200@enderzone.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]); Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:32:29 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Peter Losher , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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, 08 Mar 2008 18:32:32 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Dircks [mailto:ender@enderzone.com] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:27 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: Peter Losher; freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Peter Losher [mailto:Peter_Losher@isc.org] > >> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:18 PM > >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 > >> > >> > >> Yeah, ISC just hates FreeBSD... > >> > > > > This final report here: > > > > ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dns_perf/ISC-TN-2008-1.pdf > > > > is LIGHTYEARS different than the draft here: > > > > http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html > > > > > > The draft contains the conclusion: > > > > > > You change your underpants once a year? > I just throw them against the wall - if they stick, it's time for a change. Seriously if you think HP only changes it's product lineup once a year you haven't bought much HP. It's a very common occurance for us to make up a quote for a new HP server then by the time the customer signs off on it and we are able to go order the server, we find it on the "constrained" list because they are replacing it with yet another model change. Ted From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 8 18:57:42 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B6D106566C for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:57:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=1953f8e807=killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail1.multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9728FC1F for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:57:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=1953f8e807=killing@multiplay.co.uk) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=multiplay.co.uk; s=Multiplay; t=1205001821; x=1205606621; q=dns/txt; h=Received: Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=4c 3NJoEiBZA4iEyIO6npnPoxuQqmSFtEx8+26DCayQs=; b=l5HESMN5TnHPfXzBPS Riygox7V1zBYeT/qVbeAEYthXuK8QWDHseBvLSv7W/T6w+zttVXxF7RoRdEFD0Re zHY6Ozh33RHeri90qFusoPHvyZhg/+SHKCTWxAdYfCWIEXHHKVQ72bWCriXJLOWH vi3MxkxbsaQf1iM3p0mi20zdQ= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on mail1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.7 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST, USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 Received: from r2d2 by mail1.multiplay.co.uk (MDaemon PRO v9.6.3) with ESMTP id md50005241428.msg for ; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:43:37 +0000 Message-ID: <056601c8814c$516c0370$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:43:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0563_01C8814C.513C40E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Authenticated-Sender: Killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.182 X-Return-Path: prvs=1953f8e807=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:43:37 +0000 X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:43:41 +0000 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: rrdtool / mtr causing stalling on 7.0 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, 08 Mar 2008 18:57:42 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0563_01C8814C.513C40E0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We've been suffering on our stats box for some time now where by the machine will just stall for several seconds preventing everything from tab completion to vi newfile.txt. I was hoping an upgrade to 7.0 and ULE may help the situation but unfortunately it hasn't. I've attached both dmesg and output from lock profiling during a 5 minute period where I know the stall happened at least once. Any advice / pointers would be gratefully received. Regards Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. ------=_NextPart_000_0563_01C8814C.513C40E0-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 8 20:40:51 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B6E106567A for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:40:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from noc@hdk5.net) Received: from guam10.hdk5.net (guam10.hdk5.net [66.180.132.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E888FC2A for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:40:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from noc@hdk5.net) Received: from mohawk7.intra.net (unknown [66.180.149.18]) by guam10.hdk5.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582425C22; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:24:32 -1000 (HST) Message-ID: <47D2F59C.2040806@hdk5.net> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:22:52 -1000 From: Al Plant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071128 FreeBSD/i386 SeaMonkey/1.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:01:05 +0000 Cc: Simon Dircks , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Peter Losher , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 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, 08 Mar 2008 20:40:51 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Simon Dircks [mailto:ender@enderzone.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:27 AM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: Peter Losher; freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 >> >> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peter Losher [mailto:Peter_Losher@isc.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:18 PM >>>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >>>> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, ISC just hates FreeBSD... >>>> >>>> >>> This final report here: >>> >>> ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dns_perf/ISC-TN-2008-1.pdf >>> >>> is LIGHTYEARS different than the draft here: >>> >>> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html >>> >>> >>> The draft contains the conclusion: >>> >>> >>> >> You change your underpants once a year? >> >> > > I just throw them against the wall - if they stick, it's time > for a change. > > Seriously if you think HP only changes it's product lineup > once a year you haven't bought much HP. It's a very common > occurance for us to make up a quote for a new HP server then > by the time the customer signs off on it and we are able > to go order the server, we find it on the "constrained" list > because they are replacing it with yet another model change. > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > Aloha Ted, Dell sends many of its products in a single purchase out with nic cards and other components that are not the same in every box too. ~Al Plant - Honolulu, Hawaii - Phone: 808-284-2740 + http://hawaiidakine.com + http://freebsdinfo.org + + http://aloha50.net - Supporting - FreeBSD 6.* - 7.* - 8.* + < email: noc@hdk5.net > "All that's really worth doing is what we do for others."- Lewis Carrol From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 8 22:23:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA411065670 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 22:23:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82428FC2A for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 22:23:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D23546BAD; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:23:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 22:23:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Steven Hartland In-Reply-To: <056601c8814c$516c0370$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Message-ID: <20080308221441.E11432@fledge.watson.org> References: <056601c8814c$516c0370$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rrdtool / mtr causing stalling on 7.0 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, 08 Mar 2008 22:23:31 -0000 On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Steven Hartland wrote: > We've been suffering on our stats box for some time now where by the machine > will just stall for several seconds preventing everything from tab > completion to vi newfile.txt. > > I was hoping an upgrade to 7.0 and ULE may help the situation but > unfortunately it hasn't. > > I've attached both dmesg and output from lock profiling during a 5 minute > period where I know the stall happened at least once. > > Any advice / pointers would be gratefully received. It looks like the attachment got lost on the way through the mailing list. I think the first starting point is: what sort of stall is this? Is it, for example, all network communication stalling, all disk I/O stalling, or the entire kernel and all processes stalling? The usual diagnostics are: - Does the machine stop responding to pings while stalled, and/or possibly "catch up" all at once when it recovers? - If you run the following loop on the machine without any network or console I/O, do you see gaps in time stamps: while (1) { sleep 1 date >> date.log } - If you write a short C program that looks a lot like the above loop, but logs time stamps into an in-memory buffer, and have it look for gaps in the sequence of >3 seconds, does it run across the stall? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge