From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 26 05:09:36 2010 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 7AFF0106566C for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:09:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (outd.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBCF8FC0A for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9Q58rEV022085; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:08:54 -0700 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (72-254-86-56.client.stsn.net [72.254.86.56]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7A02D6014; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CC662A1.9030708@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:09:53 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Wolfskill References: <20101020174854.GZ21226@albert.catwhisker.org> <4CBF8032.8000609@freebsd.org> <20101025165548.GE1519@albert.catwhisker.org> In-Reply-To: <20101025165548.GE1519@albert.catwhisker.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible evidence of performance regression for 8.1-S (vs. 7.1) 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, 26 Oct 2010 05:09:36 -0000 On 10/25/10 9:55 AM, David Wolfskill wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:50:10PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >> ... >> try the 7.x machine but running the 8.x kernel.. i.e. change nothing, >> but boot the new kernel. >> ... > OK; here are results of previous tests, along with the above. As noted > earlier, I needed to set the UNAME_r environmant variable in order for > the build to succeed with the 7.x userland& 8.x kernel: > > start stop real user sys host os > 1287436357 1287461948 25590.99 81502.22 18115.07 ref-8x 8.1-S > 1287462797 1287488766 25969.26 81452.14 17920.14 ref-8x 8.1-S > 1287489641 1287515287 25645.84 81548.40 18256.52 ref-8x 8.1-S > 1287516151 1287541481 25329.64 81546.23 18294.10 ref-8x 8.1-S > 1287542355 1287568599 26244.59 81431.47 17902.39 ref-8x 8.1-S > > 1287525363 1287546846 21483.13 82628.20 21703.09 ref-7x 7.1-R+ > 1287548005 1287569100 21094.63 82853.19 22185.02 ref-7x 7.1-R+ > 1287570300 1287591371 21071.33 82756.81 21943.22 ref-7x 7.1-R+ > 1287592592 1287614103 21511.23 82637.30 21849.90 ref-7x 7.1-R+ > 1287615323 1287636770 21446.42 82715.81 21708.97 ref-7x 7.1-R+ > > 1287710312 1287732046 21733.20 82688.01 22108.95 ref-8x 7.1-R+ > 1287733360 1287754549 21188.88 82869.09 21890.83 ref-8x 7.1-R+ > 1287755881 1287777566 21684.09 82772.50 21933.74 ref-8x 7.1-R+ > > 1287879508 1287905173 25665.03 81696.22 18278.42 ref-8x 8.1-S[7.1-R+ user] > 1287906039 1287931709 25669.48 81735.00 18265.78 ref-8x 8.1-S[7.1-R+ user] > 1287932573 1287958275 25700.99 81700.40 18246.04 ref-8x 8.1-S[7.1-R+ user] > 1287959144 1287984859 25714.74 81800.40 18346.57 ref-8x 8.1-S[7.1-R+ user] > 1287985748 1288011752 26004.33 81569.28 17967.68 ref-8x 8.1-S[7.1-R+ user] > > > The stanzas depict resource usage during each iteration of the workload > under test (building software) under various conditions: > > * First, building on the ref-8x machine, running FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE r214029. > > * For comparison, building on the ref-7.x machine, running a lightly- > patched 7.1-R. > > * As a reality check, building on the ref-8.x machine, running the > above-cited 7.1-R (+patches) -- just to verify that there wasn't > something obviously different in the hardware configurations or > connections. > > * Finally, the requested 8.1-S kernel with 7.1-R+ userland (though I ran > it on the ref-8x machine, as I had some other things to do with the > ref-7.x machine). > > It appears to me that the last test runs show results that are just > about identical to the "native" 8.1-S kernel+userland, so if I > understand the logic correctly, that appears to implicate something in > the 8.1-S kernel (or the default configuration for same). yes, exactly. however the interesting thing is that while it took more wall-clock time, it took less system and user time. you might try the 4bsd scheduler to see what that does.. also, compare the configs of the two kernels > Peace, > david