From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 4 18:58:02 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C73616A4CE for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:58:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sb.santaba.com (sb.santaba.com [207.154.84.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DBD43D39 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:58:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jbehl@fastclick.com) Received: from [192.168.3.100] (unknown [205.180.85.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sb.santaba.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3DA28433; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:58:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41DAE753.7050800@fastclick.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:58:27 -0800 From: Jeff Behl User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Chittenden References: <7632915A8F000C4FAEFCF272A880344165164F@Ehost067.exch005intermedia.net> <298151B6-5527-11D9-B830-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org> In-Reply-To: <298151B6-5527-11D9-B830-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: %cpu in system - squid performance in FreeBSD 5.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:58:02 -0000 back from vacation... i did try STABLE, with the same results: FreeBSD www2.cdn 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE #2: Sun Dec 5 21:06:14 PST 2004 root@www2.cdn:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP amd64 interestingly enough, i got a reply on a squid list from someone on a linux box who had similar results: - I've got a dual proc Xeon (3GHz) Linux 2.4.26 system running one squid 2.5.5 as reverse proxy without cache, I use squidguard to route different path of the same domain to different clusters. Top shows: Cpu1 : 39.3% user, 58.0% system, 0.0% nice, 2.7% idle - so perhaps this is some gross problem with squid? jeff Sean Chittenden wrote: >> As a follow up to the below (original message at the very bottom), I >> installed a load balancer in front of the machines which terminates the >> tcp connections from clients and opens up a few, persistent connections >> to each server over which requests are pipelined. In this scenario >> everything is copasetic: > > > Interesting... I wonder what the lock contention path is between the > VM and network stack. Has anyone else noticed this in their testing? > Did you try a post-5.3 release or not? rwatson@ just MFC'ed a bunch > of network locking fixes to RELENG_5, but none-stand out in my mind as > being something that'd potentially fix your issue. Actually, he > probably knows better than anyone what this could be. Some of the > post RELENG_5_3 commits by alc@ could explain this, however, and is > why I ask what the specific version/build time is for your release. -sc >