Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:30:44 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Eirik_=D8verby?= <ltning@anduin.net> To: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reduced java/tomcat performance 6-beta3 -> 6-stable ? Message-ID: <2C7F8873-D439-4C03-882F-F917C5F99EEF@anduin.net> In-Reply-To: <84dead720511280654j138635abgcb9cc0978e6c26b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <93F6B911-8C64-4F5C-81F9-80EC271ED298@anduin.net> <84dead720511280545v2bc0bc35jd107da06b9a788cb@mail.gmail.com> <20187843-76FC-4EAB-AFF8-7493FB0C0077@anduin.net> <84dead720511280654j138635abgcb9cc0978e6c26b7@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Follow-up: I've now ran vmstat during load, which confirms the findings of =20 vmstat during idle time. Slow system - one sample before and after load start included: procs memory page disks faults cpu r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 pa0 in sy cs =20 us sy id 3 0 0 2468572 45476 14 0 0 0 18 4 0 0 1049 3201 5132 =20= 0 0 100 0 0 1 2468572 42388 1 0 0 0 154 0 5 0 6852 19813 =20 19970 22 8 70 1 0 0 2468572 39332 1 0 0 0 155 0 11 0 6823 19661 =20 19886 23 7 71 2 0 0 2468432 36336 1 0 0 0 160 0 6 0 7031 20356 =20 20534 19 7 74 0 0 0 2468432 33228 1 0 0 0 156 0 5 0 6685 19420 =20 19613 20 7 73 2 0 0 2468432 29928 1 0 0 0 164 0 5 0 7105 20483 =20 20673 21 7 71 1 0 0 2468432 53568 1 0 0 0 153 1308 5 0 6688 19278 =20 19537 21 8 72 1 0 1 2468432 50580 2 0 0 0 150 0 6 0 6408 18430 =20 18693 24 7 69 0 0 0 2468432 47748 2 0 0 0 143 0 6 0 6323 18098 =20 18328 26 7 67 0 0 0 2468432 45056 1 0 0 0 136 0 5 0 5607 17122 =20 17062 16 7 77 0 0 0 2468432 45040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1093 3172 5164 =20= 0 0 100 Fast system: procs memory page disks faults cpu r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 pa0 in sy cs =20 us sy id 0 0 0 2439276 39708 1 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 281 1029 992 =20 6 1 93 0 0 0 2439276 39380 7 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 665 1341 1714 =20= 2 1 98 0 0 0 2439276 36472 5 0 0 0 145 0 6 0 5569 12409 =20 14821 21 7 72 0 0 0 2439276 33512 1 0 0 0 149 0 5 0 5862 12597 =20 15532 15 6 79 0 0 0 2439276 30600 1 0 0 0 146 0 4 0 5682 12655 =20 15102 19 7 74 2 0 0 2439276 54144 1 0 0 5 152 1310 10 0 6006 12908 =20 15964 17 6 77 0 0 0 2439276 51176 2 0 0 0 151 0 7 0 5348 11899 =20 14190 22 6 72 2 0 0 2439276 48104 98 0 0 0 248 0 5 0 5924 12889 =20 15757 15 7 78 1 0 0 2439276 45172 1 0 0 0 147 0 5 0 5882 12660 =20 15624 16 7 77 2 0 0 2439276 42276 1 0 0 0 145 0 5 0 5558 12477 =20 14864 21 6 73 0 0 0 2439276 39300 1 0 0 0 149 0 5 0 5842 12660 =20 15556 14 7 79 0 0 0 2439276 36348 1 0 0 0 150 0 8 0 5659 12562 =20 15042 21 5 74 0 0 0 2439276 33404 1 0 0 0 150 0 7 0 5868 12642 =20 15536 14 6 80 0 0 0 2439276 30588 1 0 0 0 142 0 6 0 5449 11961 =20 14487 19 7 74 0 0 0 2439276 30588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 246 565 =20 0 0 100 I'm tempted to upgrade the fast system to 6-STABLE (same rev as the =20 slow one). Even the slow system performs "adequately", though it =20 might help me isolate any potential hardware differences. /Eirik On Nov 28, 2005, at 15:54 , Joseph Koshy wrote: > E=D8> *loads* more context switches than on the BETA-3 system. > E=D8> I have not yet tried this during load > > - Which scheduler have you configured (BSD or ULE)? > - What do the interrupt statistics show? Any interrupt > storms? Please check the mailing lists for a prior > discussion on interrupt storms on some motherboards. > - Could you post the dmesg output from the systems (I > presume there aren't any significant differences). > > Please CC -stable too. > > -- > FreeBSD Volunteer, http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2C7F8873-D439-4C03-882F-F917C5F99EEF>