From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Tue Mar 7 01:14:55 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909E1CFB6B7 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 01:14:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56A801819 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 01:14:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065E328436 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 02:14:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 662A428431 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 02:14:44 +0100 (CET) To: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Subject: Network performance comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and Linux Message-ID: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 02:14:44 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:14:55 -0000 There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections. FreeBSD is the worst in this test. https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/19425.html https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/8K.png https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/16K.png https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perf_cmp.pdf Miroslav Lachman From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Tue Mar 7 07:10:21 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B66CFB408 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 07:10:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538781505 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 07:10:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9GE-000ORn-VF; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:10:18 +0300 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:10:18 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Network performance comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and Linux Message-ID: <20170307071018.GP15630@zxy.spb.ru> References: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 07:10:21 -0000 On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of > Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections. > FreeBSD is the worst in this test. > > https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/19425.html > > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/8K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/16K.png > > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perf_cmp.pdf Is this you test? I mean some congestion in file/page access layer on FreeBSD, can you re-test w/ about 1000 different files? I.e. every client request http://server/X_K.bin~1 http://server/X_K.bin~2 .... http://server/X_K.bin~1000 not just http://server/X_K.bin From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Tue Mar 7 09:13:05 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E262D0024B for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:13:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31FCB1EA5 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:13:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C0028486; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:13:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6489128431; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:12:59 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Network performance comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and Linux To: Slawa Olhovchenkov Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" References: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> <20170307071018.GP15630@zxy.spb.ru> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <58BE799B.6080002@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:12:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170307071018.GP15630@zxy.spb.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:13:05 -0000 Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 2017/03/07 08:10: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >> There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of >> Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections. >> FreeBSD is the worst in this test. >> >> https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/19425.html >> >> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png >> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/8K.png >> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/16K.png >> >> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perf_cmp.pdf > > Is this you test? No, it is not mine test. I just found it on the internet. > I mean some congestion in file/page access layer on FreeBSD, can you > re-test w/ about 1000 different files? > I.e. every client request > > http://server/X_K.bin~1 > http://server/X_K.bin~2 > .... > http://server/X_K.bin~1000 > > not just http://server/X_K.bin From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Thu Mar 9 19:26:47 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60338D05E05 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:26:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartmann@walstatt.org) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A021A38 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:26:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartmann@walstatt.org) Received: from thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de ([92.225.34.66]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVMgI-1clY7B1L4w-00Yih4; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:26:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 20:26:35 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Network performance comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and Linux Message-ID: <20170309202635.0ee8b0fd@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de> In-Reply-To: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> References: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> Organization: WALSTATT User-Agent: OutScare 3.1415926 X-Operating-System: ImNotAnOperatingSystem 3.141592527 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/Prd=PS.qhww8x3bKvpmO89F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:yAdkOksaYpDAGVIAEOdgutV3aMGdhwMjxAeR6X64U8T+wVLzRJ6 7HpAzzhT7p5bKuIrGyLj+MB3VieKtKJuP4LXshFQuAGAKnZG588F9IFvRy+p0nXKFiLJtqa BrHuOiKqCKFQsM5yNGdQjTZbZ3ffcctMOE/TfiT2QpLR+IYMBdB0oN/z4o4PPKwTG42Xn7M Oc4vZLW4dcEnjPutTqYzQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:MvLh+7LL5ow=:auCJdcq5PuTHdbET/D+0O2 vtydAHybA4TL/zURYKBS/aECh5UWC8D30HiTDlYfR6iELISmP33HsW8CPhcFCeC0Ja7rVAE0j lXl24rQGiwelzY7+r/1YcTm+gg5hJf6fjP5XGsmxO++Q6+yXaVQTsjfOzLRVZ3NVMvGG18dUS +oR2rhHu4crG04vA3DWIl2OR4/FjHVWHT+cKqIrmtJv7YqrSenUa4v5DUOq5gKC5F/8TjM0lX ws8beLj3UIoN560IetRu9WoN2Hsp6r2/IGxSN+nqANDwZc+kiAU0cgcJQ7DJfjgZXfFTqRcVH zpgNKeAeAhhPZoxIDaOZWSGJVgHdTNjXn/4z7ywqq/tBxr9e2G9ueM4w2HzjNfJ192BW2yycW PYa+zllanJhudLkn0K2Mxx9nXDcVQilYRK/YzeLYmdYVmQTSjhXrJeMVqiY3AjjJr0s3KZCb+ 23cM8ferVyeY9wARA3lnY43aY6Pi9dQCUL4GOK/ahR9e81PgiJnucPPmUAeNOAe5ZAAlMT+De W/ExlaFY10VL1kzN4grb2afQhqF7tabHDJ+LmRrFRXilY6jOJpt/Q3gdKEIF5wSo/HtEtaUJ8 zg3CZoRc5E4oD25z/z/zUciCxQgEWPi3PINYIqOKr1c9Apck63wErwn5cjydaVyGvrGxHW/8N TjExMKEaUT0QUWwAqIMa2QMbkt71H5orPGE760rav0iWBdjn7imDhZHcVgeN/xPKs8dpCcLn1 X63znQkk1FdATc/HA85p4FBytlGPUyjEldVVIh8PFVSIhWzlUKWTKOxxNQA= X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:26:47 -0000 --Sig_/Prd=PS.qhww8x3bKvpmO89F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Tue, 7 Mar 2017 02:14:44 +0100 Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> schrieb: > There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of=20 > Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections. > FreeBSD is the worst in this test. >=20 > https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/19425.html >=20 > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/8K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/16K.png >=20 > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perf_cmp.pdf >=20 > Miroslav Lachman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd= .org" Thank you so much for this finding. It is interesting that with a generic kernel, the "performance" is roughly = the half of what Linux and DFBSD would give. I miss performance benchmarks, it seems, that over the past couple of years= this habit has become quite unusual for FreeBSD. Oliver --=20 O. Hartmann Ich widerspreche der Nutzung oder =C3=9Cbermittlung meiner Daten f=C3=BCr Werbezwecke oder f=C3=BCr die Markt- oder Meinungsforschung (=C2=A7 28 Abs.= 4 BDSG). --Sig_/Prd=PS.qhww8x3bKvpmO89F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iLUEARMKAB0WIQQZVZMzAtwC2T/86TrS528fyFhYlAUCWMGsawAKCRDS528fyFhY lB5yAf9xO0rEAppHR8oJqy++gDNM3gamN+dKWun8GrtmHGYxP3TJtrLXcgCAi+ei QebvJgYFlvO0EP03NDvu44NG3kSrAf0ZTrA0cikZjfDeVrc6dU4XsXzY0Uq7pQpk lGamOK/NLd4hV1wYEylnGdce36MDI+tYBoh/EJDsifAAOWVLT5xU =cE9z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Prd=PS.qhww8x3bKvpmO89F--