Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:34:08 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible evidence of performance regression for 8.1-S (vs. 7.1) Message-ID: <201010261434.o9QEY32Q037618@lava.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <20101026112916.GB2262@albert.catwhisker.org> References: <20101020174854.GZ21226@albert.catwhisker.org> <4CBF8032.8000609@freebsd.org> <20101025165548.GE1519@albert.catwhisker.org> <4CC662A1.9030708@freebsd.org> <20101026112916.GB2262@albert.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 07:29 AM 10/26/2010, David Wolfskill wrote:
>OK -- but we were using the default scheduler in each case. The basic
>point I'm making here is the apparent performance regression for
>similarly-configured systems under 7.1 vs. 8.1.
ULE is the default in 7 as well. Perhaps remove some of the kernel
options not in 7, that are in 8 by default? What is the disk
subsystem ? just ata ?
They seem innocuous enough, but worth a try
options HWPMC_HOOKS # Necessary kernel hooks for hwpmc(4)
options MAC # TrustedBSD MAC Framework
options FLOWTABLE # per-cpu routing cache
---Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net
Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net
Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201010261434.o9QEY32Q037618>