Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:36:52 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org>, <TM4525@aol.com> Cc: drosih@rpi.edu Subject: RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNAEHEEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20041007223348.GA22413@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris and all, Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls? Ted Mittelstaedt PS: TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of the argument. Not that we would believe them but you deserve to have to spend some time forging them up. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:34 PM > To: TM4525@aol.com > Cc: questions@freebsd.org; drosih@rpi.edu > Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:35:18PM -0400, TM4525@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/7/04 4:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > drosih@rpi.edu > > writes: > > 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 > > > > That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP) > > and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be > > that he ignored the table as soon as he read "dual Xeon". > > -------------------------------------------- > > I haven't seen this before. > > Check your email..the above was copied from an email of mine in this > thread from earlier today. > > > If I did, I would immediately ask: > > > > - What is the control here? What does your "benchmark" test? > > UDP packet generation rate from userland. > > > - Is this on a gigabit link? What are the packet sizes? Was network > > availability a factor in limiting the test results? > > I didn't run that benchmark myself, so I'm not the best person to > answer all of your questions, and I've asked the person who did to > comment in more detail. > > > - What does "target load" mean? Does it mean don't try to send > > more than that? If so, what does it show if you reach it? If you > > don't measure the utilization that it takes to saturate your "target" > > I don't see the point of having it. > > > > - It seems that the only thing you could learn from this test would > > be what is the maximum pps > > you could achieve unidirectionally out of a system. Why is that > > useful, since its hardly ever the requirement unless you're > > building a traffic generator? > > You can see from the data that 5.x systems are capable of pushing out > more packets from userland than 4.x systems are. That's an aspect of > kernel performance, and it's one that's relevant for a number of > applications involving high data-rate transmission from userland. If > that's not what you're interested in, then you can go and run your own > benchmarks and let us know what you find out. > > > - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz > > fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, > > with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? > > Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the > kernel. > > > Assuming that your benchmark does test something, Your "results" > > seem to show that a uniprocessor machine is substantially more > > efficient than an SMP box. > > For this workload, yes. > > > It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP > > performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially > > improve SMP performance? > > Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there > are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to > hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly. > > > This seems to show the opposite. > > No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP. > Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks > on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP? > > Kris >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNAEHEEPAA.tedm>