From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 09:20:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EB816A4DA; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:20:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanyuejin2004@hotmail.com) Received: from bay0-omc3-s39.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc3-s39.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.239]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A568B43D45; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:20:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yanyuejin2004@hotmail.com) Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.22.56]) by bay0-omc3-s39.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:20:01 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:20:00 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 69.45.64.20 by by23fd.bay23.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:20:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [218.76.42.51] X-Originating-Email: [yanyuejin2004@hotmail.com] X-Sender: yanyuejin2004@hotmail.com From: "etalk etalk" To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:20:00 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2006 09:20:00.0981 (UTC) FILETIME=[AECB9050:01C6A726] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:57:10 +0000 Cc: Subject: about the performance comparsion of 6.1 vs 5.3 on amd64 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, 14 Jul 2006 09:20:02 -0000 I did some test about io performance of bsd6.1 and bsd5.3 on amd64 machine , and i didn't see any obvious performance's improvement . Is there anybody know how about the performance improvement of bsd6.1 when comparing to bsd5.3 on amd64 machine, and is there any tools that can let me see the improvement. Best Regards Yandy _________________________________________________________________ 与联机的朋友进行交流，请使用 MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com/cn From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 16:52:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBA916A4DE for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:52:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tobias@netconsultoria.com.br) Received: from srv1.netconsultoria.com.br (srv1.netconsultoria.com.br [200.230.201.252]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28DA43D49 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:52:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tobias@netconsultoria.com.br) Received: from [172.16.16.100] (mailgw.netconsultoria.com.br [200.230.201.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by srv1.netconsultoria.com.br (8.13.7/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6EGqS9M095602 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:52:28 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from tobias@netconsultoria.com.br) Message-ID: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:52:28 -0300 From: "Tobias P. Santos" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1599/Fri Jul 14 02:35:31 2006 on srv1.netconsultoria.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Upgrade to dual-core (Pentium D) processor - Does it worth it? 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, 14 Jul 2006 16:52:34 -0000 Hello! We have a server running FreeBSD 5.4 i386 (which we plan to upgrade to 6.1) with a single Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor without SMP kernel. This machine basically serves web pages that may or may not use MySQL server (also run in this server). Usually, we have low usage and load average is ~ 0.2 which is ok, but sometimes, one single process (e.g., mysqld) begins to use all CPU cycles, loading up the system and leading the other smaller processes (in terms of CPU usage) to have a high response time. As this server's motherboard doesn't support an additional processor, we are wondering whether a Pentium D processor (830) might help to minimize this problem. In our understanding, one core would be busy with mysqld for example, while the other one would be free to handle other processes like httpd and serve pages that don't even need mysql resources. Is this correct? Did someone have similiar (successful or unsuccessful) experiences? Thank you in advance, Tobias. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 17:04:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DA316A4DA for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:04:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sturdee@pathwaynet.com) Received: from zinc.pathwaynet.com (zinc.pathwaynet.com [216.46.200.95]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED30F43D46 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:04:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sturdee@pathwaynet.com) Received: from ireland.pathwaynet.com ([216.46.200.22]) by zinc.pathwaynet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.62) id 1G1R5G-000683-Td; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:04:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:04:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Sturdee To: "Tobias P. Santos" In-Reply-To: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> Message-ID: <20060714130311.C11562@ireland.pathwaynet.com> References: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade to dual-core (Pentium D) processor - Does it worth it? 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, 14 Jul 2006 17:04:18 -0000 Here's an article you might be interested in.. http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587 -Mike On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Tobias P. Santos wrote: > Hello! > > We have a server running FreeBSD 5.4 i386 (which we plan to upgrade to 6.1) > with a single Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor without SMP kernel. > This machine basically serves web pages that may or may not use MySQL server > (also run in this server). > Usually, we have low usage and load average is ~ 0.2 which is ok, but > sometimes, one single process (e.g., mysqld) begins to use all CPU cycles, > loading up the system and leading the other smaller processes (in terms of > CPU usage) to have a high response time. > As this server's motherboard doesn't support an additional processor, we are > wondering whether a Pentium D processor (830) might help to minimize this > problem. > In our understanding, one core would be busy with mysqld for example, while > the other one would be free to handle other processes like httpd and serve > pages that don't even need mysql resources. > Is this correct? Did someone have similiar (successful or unsuccessful) > experiences? > > Thank you in advance, > Tobias. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 17:05:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7896116A4E6 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:05:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219F143D72 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:05:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6EH51CX059460; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:05:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <44B7CEC4.6050504@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:05:08 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060612) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tobias P. Santos" References: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> In-Reply-To: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1599/Fri Jul 14 00:35:31 2006 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade to dual-core (Pentium D) processor - Does it worth it? 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, 14 Jul 2006 17:05:07 -0000 On 07/14/06 11:52, Tobias P. Santos wrote: > Hello! > > We have a server running FreeBSD 5.4 i386 (which we plan to upgrade to > 6.1) with a single Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor without SMP kernel. > This machine basically serves web pages that may or may not use MySQL > server (also run in this server). > Usually, we have low usage and load average is ~ 0.2 which is ok, but > sometimes, one single process (e.g., mysqld) begins to use all CPU > cycles, loading up the system and leading the other smaller processes > (in terms of CPU usage) to have a high response time. > As this server's motherboard doesn't support an additional processor, we > are wondering whether a Pentium D processor (830) might help to minimize > this problem. > In our understanding, one core would be busy with mysqld for example, > while the other one would be free to handle other processes like httpd > and serve pages that don't even need mysql resources. > Is this correct? Did someone have similiar (successful or unsuccessful) > experiences? This isn't a clear cut yes/no situation I don't think, but for mysqld, there's a lot of tuning you could probably do to make the cpu time drop and free up more cycles for other processes. There's been discussions in the past on this list about mysql, but if you have already done all the optimizations that you can with mysql (with indexes and such for instance), then the extra processor would definitely allow the other non-database blocked web pages to be served, as long as you aren't actually IO bound somewhere. I don't know how much memory you have in the current machine, but adding more might be a good quick upgrade (that is fairly cheap probably). Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 17:05:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7D416A4E0 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:05:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C529B43D77 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:05:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4195FCC; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:05:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xlg2hBuA7dl2; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [199.103.21.238] (pan.codefab.com [199.103.21.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033B05D44; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:05:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> References: <44B7CBCC.7020100@netconsultoria.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <71F17CAF-882F-48D8-91F5-52602F3B7C04@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:05:29 -0400 To: Tobias P. Santos X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade to dual-core (Pentium D) processor - Does it worth it? 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, 14 Jul 2006 17:05:40 -0000 On Jul 14, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Tobias P. Santos wrote: > As this server's motherboard doesn't support an additional > processor, we are wondering whether a Pentium D processor (830) > might help to minimize this problem. > In our understanding, one core would be busy with mysqld for > example, while the other one would be free to handle other > processes like httpd and serve pages that don't even need mysql > resources. > Is this correct? Did someone have similiar (successful or > unsuccessful) experiences? Yes, in particular, the preforking design that Apache uses distributes very well amoungst multiple CPUs. There is some overhead from using SMP, you might get better performance by separating your workload into two machines, one dedicated to Apache and one dedicated to your MySQL database, but upgrading to a dual-core CPU is cheaper... -- -Chuck