Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:24:38 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: BigelowA@SEC.GOV Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Message-ID: <20041007142438.GB96182@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20041007140410.GA94481@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <12f.4da18c16.2e96a4d9@aol.com> <20041007140410.GA94481@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 07:04:10AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:55:37AM -0400, TM4525@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/6/04 6:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 > > kris@obsecurity.org writes: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: > > > Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. =20 > >=20 > > There is none, because Mr./Ms. TM4525 is making up his/her "facts" to > > suit their assertion. The last time this claim was made it was > > refuted and TM4525 promised to go away and check 5.3 performance. > >=20 > > Kris > > ---------------------------------- > >=20 > > Actually, Kris, it wasn't "refuted", you said that the exceptionally po= or=20 > > performance was "expected" until 5.3 was released, and implied that=20 > > anyone who expected good performance was making a fool of themselves. > >=20 > > Search google groups for "freebsd 5.2 performance woes" and sort by dat= e=20 > > to see my test details and subsequent comments by Kris and the other=20 > > FreeBSD Spin Doctors. > >=20 > > My tests are very controlled, and my "assertion" is a result of excepti= onally > > poor performance in the test. And no-one "refuted" my results. More=20 > > like jockeying to save face. > >=20 > > Nor did I "promise to go away". I promised to test 5.3 and post=20 > > the results. >=20 > We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other > benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 150000 150000 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 200000 200000 200000 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 250000 250000 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 300000 300000 242213 179157 181098 169355 i.e. it shows a 33% improvement on UP machines, and 6% on SMP between 4.x and 5.3. (Of course, kernel packet generation is much faster than userland, but that's not what is benchmarked here.) SMP in 5.3 does a lot better in benchmarks of other types of workloads, for example mysql with the "supersmack" stress tool. I don't have those numbers to hand right now though. Of course, there are lots of other things you could try to benchmark, and there is certainly a lot of optimization work remaining to be done. The first step in optimizing is to find a good test case that clearly demonstrates a problem, and run it under controlled conditions. But this shows that 5.3 is clearly a good start along that path, and is a significant improvement over 4.x and older 5.x releases. You should expect further performance improvements in the 5.x branch over the coming months, as the focus of development shifts from infrastructure to optimization. Kris --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBZVGmWry0BWjoQKURAsQLAKDCmbGFIPz3q0bRCW9qw+zWe0jecACeLH5R YOcEwiZ6+i2dORRlcvfQy+E= =W7q9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041007142438.GB96182>