From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 11:45:28 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A469B16A41F for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 11:45:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsdlist@cogeco.ca) Received: from fep7.cogeco.net (smtp2.cogeco.ca [216.221.81.29]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDD913C447 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 11:45:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsdlist@cogeco.ca) Received: from elehost-can.cogeco.ca (d141-2-106.home.cgocable.net [24.141.2.106]) by fep7.cogeco.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7421B8F; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:45:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 07:47:12 -0400 To: Chris From: Paul In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0705281345k7e3244e8v75e42f3d55884b00@mail.gmail.com > References: <00b301c785b9$0bc9b180$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20070423155922.GA1156@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070424010422.9E9376A4@fep3.cogeco.net> <20070424021553.GA4224@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070424025031.F0841AE5@fep1.cogeco.net> <20070424035249.GA5598@xor.obsecurity.org> <3aaaa3a0705050423x72b78952wfd530a492c9cea14@mail.gmail.com> <20070523145728.F040562B@fep2.cogeco.net> <3aaaa3a0705271620g1fc39b84ua539c8daf194c065@mail.gmail.com> <20070528193726.2B0FE1242@fep7.cogeco.net> <3aaaa3a0705281345k7e3244e8v75e42f3d55884b00@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20070529114527.8B7421B8F@fep7.cogeco.net> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: System Cpu Between 50-70% and need to find out why X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:45:28 -0000 At 04:45 PM 28/05/2007, Chris wrote: >On 28/05/07, Paul wrote: >> >> > >> >I will run tests on a local box but I cant be toggling the kernels on >> >my production servers. >> > >> >Thanks >> > >> >Chris >> >>Hi Chris, >> >>So have you removed the QUOTA feature from your production boxes? I >>am curious what you did here to get things working on the stable 6.2? >> >>I am amazed more people are not having an issue with this. >> >>Thanks >> >>Paul >> >no I use QUOTA but put up with the performance hit, all my production >servers are dual core now and new ones will be core 2 duos so I work >round it with raw power, also using SATA hds instead of PATA. I dont >use QUOTA on every single server tho, just the commercial web servers. > >Chris Thanks for your reply. That is odd as I used two Dual Core CPUS (4 in total) XEON 64 with 16 GIG of RAM and SATA HD on the amd64 branch with a very fast Areca controller and the hit was so bad that the system was not usable at all. It was like going back to a 386 (or beyond that). Did you provide any mail services on that server? I have a hunch it was the multiple instant access to many files that was causing the slowdown (50-100 of small file reads and writes per second). If you only provided FTP type access then that may not have been as big of an issue as you may not have had as many concurrent file writes. Thanks Paul