From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org  Wed Mar  8 10:55:42 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190C5D02402
 for <freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Wed,  8 Mar 2017 10:55:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075011EAB
 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Mar 2017 10:55:42 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix)
 id 03BDFD02401; Wed,  8 Mar 2017 10:55:42 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4199D02400;
 Wed,  8 Mar 2017 10:55:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B23471EAA;
 Wed,  8 Mar 2017 10:55:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>)
 id 1clZFk-000GtX-EU; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:55:32 +0300
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:55:32 +0300
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: "Eugene M. Zheganin" <emz@norma.perm.ru>
Cc: "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org>,
 freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: about that DFBSD performance test
Message-ID: <20170308105532.GR15630@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <b91a6e40-9956-1ad9-ac59-41a281846147@norma.perm.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b91a6e40-9956-1ad9-ac59-41a281846147@norma.perm.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:55:42 -0000

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:00:34AM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> Some have probably seen this already - 
> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2017-March/313254.html
> 
> So, could anyone explain why FreeBSD was owned that much. Test is split  
> into two parts, one is nginx part, and the other is the IPv4 forwarding 

three: UFS part. And multiple simulations access to same file/block
can cause page lock congestion.

> part. I understand that nginx ownage was due to SO_REUSEPORT feature, 
> which we do formally have, but in DFBSD and Linux it does provide a 
> kernel socket multiplexor, which eliminates locking, and ours does not. 
> I have only found traces of discussion that DFBSD implementation is too 
> hackish. Well, hackish or not, but it's 4 times faster, as it turns out. 
> The IPv4 forwarding loss is pure defeat though.
> 
> Please not that although they use HEAD it these tests, they also mention 
> that this is the GENERIC-NODEBUG kernel which means this isn't related 
> to the WITNESS stuff.
> 
> Please also don't consider this trolling, I'm a big FreeBSD fan through 
> the years, so I'm asking because I'm kind of concerned.