From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 06:21:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F881065678 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:21:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F308FC0C for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:21:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p54A5542B.dip.t-dialin.net [84.165.84.43]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5493C2E15B; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:05:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7721A92E17; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:05:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1216188333; bh=kOtvvf4Z21mRaDVV71O29NK/xHSIjGOEa Y3U/ZKf6Mw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HxD1ChcfFlQ9aMfEeNFXc5EGbNX3RzBcjo16BlPwXVNIXlbenna/0eudsO2JjV39p Ip/MRIhvLOeQmhJ0P6AcxhUCn93hh3RkbjvfxCgegdTIrBQuLAdAMzffdpUI2S25OaT OQhs9H4i+7LQO22eKkovPT3xDMotx7RbJa5c4ofmAnqIk451j0Qnwi5dLt+EBLzkP3d Afj8hF32X0RhJj5RvYrCk2LTGtBrC4peVr3fs68hJlDW/IyKC1pdiiOPJh/4oDCMxO1 /P1GAR7w/5QHKZliWFZDqNV6O7YXzppYDXrXQOskSCnpf+4ToViMswDRC3kG1jxsHRX 92p6p5SQg== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.2/8.13.8/Submit) id m6G65Wba011839; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:05:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:05:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20080716080532.18862vjyr477xls0@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:05:32 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Rahul References: <4804a6670807151328y2cf30363x9b808912286ea1f5@mail.gmail.com> <487D1069.3030801@elischer.org> <4804a6670807151717r54f2889fq6c9c70afebee413d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4804a6670807151717r54f2889fq6c9c70afebee413d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.2-RC2) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-14.9, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Real Insight on Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:21:54 -0000 Quoting Rahul (from Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:17:46 -0400): > For example: I would like to run a high performance web server that > can handle up to 200 connections per second and serve them with great > speed. That's where the concern for multi-threaded support. Depending Serving 200 connections per second for static data is not hard. And =20 you don't need multi-threading for that. Multiple processes is =20 actually better than multi-threading in this regard, as you don't have =20 to do locking of filedescriptors in the the webserver over multiple =20 threads. The difference between linux and FreeBSD should be not big =20 for single CPU/core systems, but if you increase the number of =20 CPUs/cores this may be different. See the postgresql (it uses =20 processes, not threads like mysql) graphs in =20 http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20and%20beyond.pdf to get =20 an idea about the scaling of more or less independent processes in =20 FreeBSD. > on the request, I may have to load (and possibly unload) dynamic > modules to perform calculations, and if need be, fetch data from > either DB or flat file. It could involve connecting to a process on As soon as you have calculations and/or DB accesses involved, it =20 mostly depends upon the DB optimizations ("good" tables, indexes, data =20 volume, queries, good concurrency of the DB, ...) and the computation, =20 not on the OS. So without any specific workload, we can not really =20 give recommendations (besides giving FreeBSD a try and working with us =20 if there's problem). > another box to get request specific command strings. This process > could run for almost 20 hours straight and OS still has to be able to > keep in shape. The OS doesn't care about how long a process runs. But if you talk =20 about good responsiveness of the OS while a process uses a lot of =20 memory and CPU, FreeBSD will handle it good (and from what I heard and =20 seen better than Linux, but I don't have numbers at hand). Bye, Alexander. --=20 Leela: Well, someone's in a good mode. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137