From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 23 03:49:06 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08822A05; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:49:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D0612DE9; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9N3n3Ln090228; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:49:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id r9N3n3aR090225; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:49:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:49:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: aurfalien Subject: Re: FreeBSD, Centos and ZFS - SOLVED In-Reply-To: <582DEBF0-5745-4E65-AEEF-36C11A631F4E@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1381600575.18393.33219025.5D7B78D0@webmail.messagingengine.com> <8CA809B3-1692-4760-A63F-9D7451EB49BD@gmail.com> <525D143B.50202@gmail.com> <1382285088.2462.36238881.1AA6BB17@webmail.messagingengine.com> <25C055B9-4A19-46C8-B78E-AC8BD6E00CD9@gmail.com> <582DEBF0-5745-4E65-AEEF-36C11A631F4E@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:49:04 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:49:06 -0000 On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, aurfalien wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Warren Block wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, aurfalien wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 20, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Mark Felder wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013, at 14:31, aurfalien wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ZoL comes with a little interesting feature; arc2 compression, which does >>>>> seem to enhance performance all around. I disabled this in CentOS to >>>>> level the playing field. >>>>> >>>> >>>> FreeBSD 10 also has L2ARC compression >>>> >>>> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=251478 >>> >>> OMG, what a relief... the ~30% diff in performance was due to a BIOS setting, in particular this one; >>> >>> Intel Turbo Boost Technology >>> Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Tech >>> >>> I disabled both. >> >> Enable them both and also enable powerd on FreeBSD in /etc/rc.conf so it can take advantage of the first. >> >>> In fact, FreeBSD is showing a tad better now then CentOS. I have files if any one is interested in viewing. >> >> With Turbo mode on, it may go even faster. > > Thats interesting, I will and report back. > > Since this will be a rather heavily utilized NFS server (perhaps CIFS later), how do I ensure powerd doesn't lullaby the server to sleep or at least slow it down during mellow periods? There's the hiadaptive profile, and the polling interval (-p) can be reduced from the default of 250ms. 50ms made my desktop a lot more responsive. I also have some patches for a "hyper" mode that only uses the fastest and slowest speeds, no slewing. Mailing list thread here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi/2013-July/008238.html To date, I have not really found out whether the hyper mode is truly better in terms of speed versus power.