Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:57:10 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> Cc: "Eugene M. Zheganin" <emz@norma.perm.ru>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: about that DFBSD performance test Message-ID: <20170308125710.GS15630@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAK7dMtDiT-PKyy5LkT1WEg5g-nwqv501F=Ap4dNCdwzwr_1dqA@mail.gmail.com> References: <b91a6e40-9956-1ad9-ac59-41a281846147@norma.perm.ru> <CAK7dMtDiT-PKyy5LkT1WEg5g-nwqv501F=Ap4dNCdwzwr_1dqA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:25:57AM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote: > Right off the bat, FreeBSD doesn't really understand NUMA in any sufficient > capacity. Unfortunately at companies like the one I work at, we take that > to mean "OK buy a high bin CPU and only populate one socket" which serves NUMA applicable only to high-localy computed tasks. http/https/any_network_related serving is not related to this. Indeed, on modern CPU is not important to bind NIC irq handlers to same CPU/sockets as NIC.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170308125710.GS15630>