From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 13 18:31:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E72198 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from obrien@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5531CD5; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r5DIVM4T062812; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:22 GMT (envelope-from obrien@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r5DIVL6e062809; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:21 GMT (envelope-from obrien) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:31:19 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Mark Felder Subject: Re: Scaling and performance issues with FreeBSD 9 (& 10) on 4 socket systems Message-ID: <20130613183119.GA40198@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <20130612225849.GA2858@dragon.NUXI.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT X-MUA-Host: dragon.NUXI.org X-to-the-FBI-CIA-and-NSA: HI! HOW YA DOIN? can i haz chizburger? User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:22 -0000 On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:32:41AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > The CPUs between those machines are quite different. I wouldn't say they are "quite" different. It's not like comparing Netburst to Core2, or I believe even original Core2 to Sandybridge. I may be wrong, I've not followed Intel cores from a micro-architecture POV too closely. If anything it's typical for a newer micro-architecture to perform the same at a lower clock speed. > I'm sure we're > looking at different cache sizes, different behavior for the > hyperthreading, Is there something specific you are thinking of? The Xeon E5-4650 has 20M "smart" cache organized as ??? The Xeon X5690 has 12M "smart" cache organized as ??? I know the AMD cache hierarchy for L1 I&D, L2, L3; but I'm not seeing this as clearly spelled out for these Xeons. > etc. I'm sure others would be greatly interested in you > providing the same benchmark results for a recent snapshot of HEAD as well. 10-CURRENT results were in http://people.freebsd.org/~obrien/jbm/vanitygen/vanity-perf-graph.png as "fbsd10". Or are you suggesting something else? thanks for your thoughts! -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)