Date: 17 Jul 2006 11:07:10 +0200 From: Andreas Hauser <andy@splashground.de> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, User Freebsd <freebsd@hub.org> Subject: Re: Is 6.x slower then 4.x ... ? Message-ID: <20060717090710.22834.qmail@shadow.splashground.de> In-Reply-To: <20060717030249.GB3344@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20060716114546.B1799@ganymede.hub.org> <20060717030249.GB3344@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
brooks wrote @ Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:02:50 -0500: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:49:35AM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: > FreeBSD 6 is slower than 4 for some things and faster for others. That > should be expected since fine grained locking involves increased numbers > of expensive atomic operations (which are particularly bad on Intel > P4 and Xeon systems). The gain is that we've got significantly more > parallelism in many areas (for example, see kris's I/O benchmarking > presented at BSDCan). Looking at it as a thought experiment, you should > expect microbenchmarks to perform worse, sometimes much worse. If > your application looks like those microbenchmarks that's going to be a > problem, if not it may or may not be. OK. Kris presented exactly one benchmark were 6 is better (30%) and that is with sync mounts. Sorry, but i don't know many people running async mounts. Since none of the benchmarks from people seem to have influence on you, why not provide benchmarks, application ones, that show that 6 is good in anything performance wise. Until then we keep thinking it is worse, since our benchmarking shows it to be worse (of course we are doing it all wrong ...). > In short the black and white question you are asking makes little > sense. :) It usually boils down to a black and white question like "Use or do not use?". -- Andy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060717090710.22834.qmail>