From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 9 18:51:56 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B407106564A for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 18:51:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave.list@pixelhammer.com) Received: from smtp2.tls.net (smtp2.tls.net [65.196.224.83]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD128FC12 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 18:51:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave.list@pixelhammer.com) Received: (qmail 99423 invoked from network); 9 May 2008 18:51:55 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.2.3 ppid: 99403, pid: 99419, t: 0.1770s scanners: attach: 1.2.3 clamav: 0.91.1/m:45/d:6125 spam: 3.2.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on smtp-2.tls.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=20.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.2.1 Received: from 64-184-10-3.bb.hrtc.net (HELO ?192.168.1.46?) (ldg%tls.net@64.184.10.3) by auth-smtp2.tls.net with ESMTPA; 9 May 2008 18:51:55 -0000 Message-ID: <48249CC8.50300@pixelhammer.com> Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 14:49:44 -0400 From: DAve User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'User Questions' References: <482473B7.7070707@pixelhammer.com> <48248AC9.5060507@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20080509202941.J53368@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20080509202941.J53368@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 18:51:56 -0000 Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> FreeBSD 6.2 is I believe slower than 4.11 for single processor systems >> and processes which pretty much run single threaded -- ie. exactly what >> you're trying to run. This would cause exactly the sort of symptoms >> you're >> seeing. > > and what most unix users do. > >> Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-core >> type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could > > so 4.11 is fastest? I would be inclined to try another version if I knew what the cause of this issue was exactly, and I saw in the release notes that the issue was resolved in 7.X. But I cannot just try a new version on a production server as an experiment. I've hosed this up enough thinking 6.2 was out long enough to not surprise me. I've not compared them on any server running multiple CPUs, but on a single physical CPU server I've yet to see 5.X or 6.X keep up with 4.X. I've been poo poo'd heartily for saying so, more than once. I would hope, and I do think, this is easily solved. I've already had one private email stating a binary upgrade to 6.3 solved the same problem for them. I wish I could find that email again 8^( DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins.