From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 7 19:27:14 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: performance@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 9AC83906 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:27:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik+lists@cederstrand.dk) Received: from csmtp12.one.com (csmtp12.one.com [195.47.247.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5EB2BD9 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.82] (unknown [176.222.238.90]) by csmtp12.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BFDBB4000B701 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.82] ([UNAVAILABLE]. [176.222.238.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/4.8.87); Mon, 07 Oct 2013 19:09:25 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966? From: Erik Cederstrand In-Reply-To: <20131007172804.GA7641@albert.catwhisker.org> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 21:19:38 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <172AF9A7-53F7-42CF-A164-084CFB418EE9@cederstrand.dk> References: <20131007172804.GA7641@albert.catwhisker.org> To: performance@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 19:27:14 -0000 Den 07/10/2013 kl. 19.28 skrev David Wolfskill : > In examining the CPU utilization graphs, the CPU generally looks > about 5% busy for the first 15 minutes; this would be bmake = determining > dependency graphs, I expect. Is that one process using 100% of one core, or many processes using 5% = total? > Based on earlier work I did, where I was able to do a similar build in = a > native FreeBSD/i386 (no PAE) enviroment on the same hardware (but when > it still only had 6GB RAM), and I managed to get the build done in = 2:47, > I believe that getting more work done in parallel in this 2:00 period = is > a key to improving performance: the 2:47 result showed that period to = be > a very busy one for the CPU. You need to know where your bottlenecks are during the build. Since you = have lots of RAM, you could try to rule out differences in filesystem = access by placing your jail on an mfs and building your software off = that. If that improves build times, then you're IO bound at least some = of the time. You should be logging disk access along with CPU and memory = during the build. Erik=