Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:46:51 +0900 From: TeJun Huh <tejun@aratech.co.kr> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Performance of freeBSD 5.1 Message-ID: <20030827004651.GA21881@atj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, I've been conducting performance tests using simple HTTP proxies and web polygraph <http://www.web-polygraph.org/>. Web polygraph is believed to generate realistic Internet load (high number of sessions, many idle, req rate independent of resp rate, and so on). I built several equivalent HTTP proxies using various concurrency mechanisms and comparing those on linux and freeBSD. The following result is obtained on p4 xeon 2.4g (UP kernels). Custom version of Kqueue is used on Linux. FreeBSD 5.1 is updated to the latest cvs tree three weeks ago (due to thread stability issues) and compiled with GENERIC option. FreeBSD Linux Select Kqueue Select Kqueue rps 400 500 500 2500 I feel something is very wrong with FreeBSD kqueue result. Used tuning parameters are * Loader tunables kern.maxusers="512" kern.ipc.maxsockets="200000" kern.ipc.nmbclusters="51200" kern.ipc.nmbufs="102400" net.inet.tcp.tcbhashsize="65536" * Sysctls sysctl -w net.inet.ip.portrange.first=1024 sysctl -w net.inet.ip.portrange.last=65535 sysctl -w kern.ipc.somaxconn=1024 sysctl -w kern.maxfiles=200000 sysctl -w kern.maxfilesperproc=200000 sysctl -w kern.threads.max_threads_per_proc=100000 sysctl -w kern.threads.max_groups_per_proc=8000 As soon as the test machine becomes available, I'm gonna run tests on freeBSD 4.8 and compare the results. Any suggestions are welcomed. P.S. Please don't forget to CC me. TIA. -- tejun
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030827004651.GA21881>