From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 20 09:53:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD1316A4CE for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ojoink.com (center.ojoink.com [216.65.123.180]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444BE43D53 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from amd64list@jpgsworld.com) Received: (qmail 7947 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2004 16:57:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO MAINBX.jpgsworld.com) (amd64list@jpgsworld.com@24.10.96.33) by center.ojoink.com with SMTP; 20 May 2004 16:57:39 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040520094801.0436d208@mail.ojoink.com> X-Sender: amd64list@jpgsworld.com@mail.ojoink.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:53:14 -0700 To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org From: JG In-Reply-To: <00a501c43e89$b39ed8b0$7b07000a@int.mediasurface.com> References: <200405191211.25786.peter@wemm.org> <20040519172913.GU601@funkthat.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040519052743.04365f78@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040519060611.0435f750@mail.ojoink.com> <20040519172913.GU601@funkthat.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040520041642.03db2188@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040520085802.015fc2d0@mail.ojoink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: Why is MySQL nearly twice as fast on Linux/AMD64 Vs. FreeBSD/AMD64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:53:27 -0000 At 05:44 PM 5/20/2004 +0100, you wrote: >Great minds... :) >If you've gone to the trouble of installing i386 I wouldn't limit your >tests to >just WITH_LINUXTHREADS=yes, but also try pthreads as well it could be >an AMD64 specific issue with pthreads implementation but I doubt it. Oh I definitely will. Actually it just finished installing and I'm building cvsup right now. Should I bring it up to -CURRENT first you think? It's a 5.2.1 disc from maybe a couple months ago. I'm almost wondering if I shouldn't have tried 4.9-STABLE first. Is there some kind test I can run to find out if SMP is actually being used efficiently or not? John-Mark said something earlier about watching output of "vmstat -w 1" and if the ID's don't drop below 20 then I am probably only using a single CPU. Well, I hope that's not the case because I ran that while cvsup was compiling (it just finished) and the ID's never dropped below 50.