Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 23:23:35 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: DAve <dave.list@pixelhammer.com>, 'User Questions' <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load Message-ID: <4824CEE7.6070605@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080509202941.J53368@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <482473B7.7070707@pixelhammer.com> <48248AC9.5060507@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20080509202941.J53368@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig9EFE26A09F799EB2B35C7C2A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 wha=
t
>> you're trying to run. This would cause exactly the sort of symptoms=20
>> you're
>> seeing.
Actually I was mistaken: I saw 4.11 and 2.4GHz Xeon and assumed the OP wa=
s using
2004-era hardware. The whole "Quad Core" thing just didn't register.
> and what most unix users do.
It is what a lot of unix users have done historically, but now that there=
is good
support coming through for highly threaded, parallelized applications, de=
velopers
are going to write more and users are going to run more applications that=
exploit
that.
It's not a "Unix way" versus "Other OS Way" thing -- its a response to th=
e change
in direction hardware development has taken over the past several years. =
Chip
manufacturers have all but given up on the race to outdo each other on th=
e MHz
or GHz rating of their products. Nowadays it's all about how many CPU co=
res and
how much cache RAM there is on each chip. 4 cores and 8MB is just the la=
test
step in that evolutionary arms race. =20
>> Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-co=
re
>> type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you co=
uld
>=20
> so 4.11 is fastest?
It depends very much on the application load you have to support and the =
sort
of hardware you have available. For the sort of multicore chips that are=
all the
rage nowadays, I'd go with 7.0 every time, even running single threaded
applications.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig9EFE26A09F799EB2B35C7C2A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkgkzu0ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxAEgCfWVCJWL9Hg9Ci9XTrcPZ4rMo0
siAAoJLxdGTQqOSSjt8UflV6Bys7PnwW
=RGMZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig9EFE26A09F799EB2B35C7C2A--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4824CEE7.6070605>