From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 27 01:33:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34E216A4CE for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:33:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3021D43D3F for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:33:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-208-232.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.208.232]) by pi.codefab.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBR1XpwD026402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:33:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41CF6672.7080503@mac.com> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:33:38 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org References: <41C8BD1C.9090507@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.5 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pi.codefab.com Subject: Re: BIND9 performance issues with SMP X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:33:58 -0000 JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H wrote: >On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:17:32 -0700, Scott Long said: [ ... ] >>Do you have any comparisons to NetBSD or Solaris? Comparing to Linux >>often results in comparing apples to oranges since there is >>long-standing suspicion that Linux cuts corners where BSD does not. > > I've never done this type of test for NetBSD, since as far as I know > NetBSD is not very SMP-aware (does this change in, e.g., NetBSD 2.0?). Indeed, from http://www.netbsd.org/Releases/formal-2.0/NetBSD-2.0.html "The addition of a native threads implementation for all platforms and symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP) on i386 and other popular platforms were long-standing goals for NetBSD 2.0. Both of these goals have now been met—SMP support has been added for i386, SPARC, and PowerPC, the SMP support on Alpha and VAX has been improved, and the new port to the 64-bit AMD/Opteron also supports SMP." > I've checked Solaris with similar tests, but I could only use > a 2-processor sparc box. So, the results would not be very > informative. FWIW, however, Solaris performed quite well with 2 > processors. Solaris probably has the best SMP/threading implementation available today, and the SPARCv8 and v9 architectures were highly oriented towards supporting parallel execution and dealing with SMP cache coherency issues. Solaris on SPARC scales up with more CPUs added against workload very well, the only real problem the platform had is that individual SPARC CPU's aren't especially fast to begin with. Solaris is also using streams rather than a classic BSD TCP/IP network stack, although FreeBSD itself is going beyond classic TCP/IP stuff via Netgraph... -- -Chuck