From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 3 13:54:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5201065670 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:54:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bra@fsn.hu) Received: from people.fsn.hu (people.fsn.hu [195.228.252.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B23A8FC0C for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:54:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bra@fsn.hu) Received: from [172.16.129.140] (fw.axelero.hu [195.228.243.120]) by people.fsn.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798F5B2F2A; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:54:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <47F4E1A1.2020500@fsn.hu> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:54:41 +0200 From: Attila Nagy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Lambrev References: <475B0F3E.5070100@fsn.hu> <479DFE74.8030004@fsn.hu> <479F02A7.9020607@fsn.hu> <47F4D0DD.2040809@fsn.hu> <47F4D9F2.9070200@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <47F4D9F2.9070200@moneybookers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?6YGU5ZOJ?= , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?SklOTUVJIFRhdHV5YSAvIOelnuaYjg==?=, bind-users@isc.org Subject: Re: Bad bind performance with FreeBSD 7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:54:54 -0000 On 2008.04.03. 15:21, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Greetings, > > Attila Nagy wrote: >> On 01/29/08 11:40, Attila Nagy wrote: >>> ps: I have an other problem. I've recently switched from a last year >>> 6-STABLE to 7-STABLE and got pretty bad results on the same machine >>> with the same bind (9.4). >>> The graphs are here: >>> http://picasaweb.google.com/nagy.attila/20080129Fbsd6vs7Bind >> The problem still persists and now I can provide some profiling info, >> made by HWPMC. >> >> > Sorry if you already answer this question, but at least I can find it > in the thread. > What scheduler are you using on RELENG_7 ? > Did you check with both schedulers (ule/4bsd) to see which one works > better for you? > Also are you sure that you service the same number of requests - I see > that the 6.x image shows CPU usage from > Aug 2007 and 7.x image is from Jan 2008 ... is it possible, that you > have more requests and that's why your CPU usage increased? As for the pictures: GENERIC kernels, so 4BSD on both versions (6 and 7). As for the profiling info: 4BSD on 6, ULE on 7 (because both were upgraded yesterday, and ULE is now default in RELENG_7) The pictures are from the same timeframe (what aug 2007 refers to is the time when the OS was compiled), the two machines were behind a per packet load balancer, so yes: at least in pps, they've got exactly the same traffic (of course it was possible be that one machine could serve the answer directly from the cache, while the other had to go out, but I've started them at the same time, so I think this effect was minimized).