From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 13 19:23:41 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81ECC16A403 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:23:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michel@lucenet.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E003113C44B for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:23:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michel@lucenet.com.br) Received: from webmail.matik.com.br (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l0DJNa1V050287; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:23:37 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from michel@lucenet.com.br) Received: from 200.152.83.36 (SquirrelMail authenticated user luc.michel) by webmail.matik.com.br with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:23:39 -0200 (BRST) Message-ID: <64716.200.152.83.36.1168716219.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070113190447.GA65571@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <64656.200.152.83.36.1168651673.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <45A87878.1050505@paradise.net.nz> <63758.200.152.83.36.1168689227.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113164232.GA34348@xor.obsecurity.org> <64857.200.152.83.36.1168710081.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113180036.GA64359@xor.obsecurity.org> <60639.200.152.83.36.1168714686.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113190447.GA65571@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:23:39 -0200 (BRST) From: "Michel Santos" To: "Kris Kennaway" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: diskio low read 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: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:23:41 -0000 Kris Kennaway disse na ultima mensagem: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:58:06PM -0200, Michel Santos wrote: > >> I have two server, the main server is a Supermicro Dualcore Dual Opteron >> and the backup is a Athlon64 X2, both with 4GB >> >> The disks are the same, only the onboard SCSI is Adaptec and the other >> is >> LSI. Funny is that I have no difference regarding the disk read >> performance wether I use the Opteron machine or the other >> >> dmesg Opteron >> http://suporte.lucenet.com.br/ms/dmesg.sm >> >> dmesg X2 >> http://suporte.lucenet.com.br/ms/dmesg.x2 >> >> kernel config >> http://suporte.lucenet.com.br/ms/kernel62 > > options SCHED_ULE # ULE scheduler > > From the NOTES file from where you copied this: > > # SCHED_ULE is a new scheduler that has been designed for SMP and has some > # advantages for UP as well. It is intended to replace the 4BSD scheduler > # over time. NOTE: SCHED_ULE is currently considered experimental and is > # not recommended for production use at this time. > > When investigating problems with your system, your very first step > should be to revert the use of code marked "experimental" and "not > recommended for production use" ;-) > I am running both (on at a time of course :) ), now for six month or so, ULE is giving me better overall performance, either with or w/o polling. I mean network performance. I have net.isr.enable=1 and net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1, this way I do get the same network performance I had on the 4.11. I mean I have no problem here. But also I checked the ULE/BSD against my particular problem and there is no difference at all. I get no acceptable disk read performance when comparing what I had with 4.11, wether with ULE or with 4BSD Michel computador é como nem cavalo e mulher mais que montam neles, pior que ficam ... **************************************************** Datacenter Matik http://datacenter.matik.com.br E-Mail e Data Hosting Service para Profissionais. ****************************************************