From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Sat Oct 14 02:27:02 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2C1E365CD for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from grarpamp@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ua0-x236.google.com (mail-ua0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D3583123 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from grarpamp@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ua0-x236.google.com with SMTP id n22so6486456uaj.13 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:27:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gv+O+2FOn1rRZk/OlalI4rfOFxuMZnTYSj5Pxjg9KGg=; b=ACgprrNeEZBZDeVj6BlySGnNCagsAm0wNWtzypzAzXX1oRW0E5cfR5ONRM6DODdDQ8 9rPCTLGF6Gs6OGY6165k5hnGb2glECuc/XNA1Si03ElsENnmj5qeCByIrxgBMFHwSvDM sCvCV9TGhdxv7ZAozYyaWUZujs/gW3CQF6iJunkEWJQL7JKo+wh/WAQ42U48fp49nCgt JKnurJeX0ZiwTtdRDy5yTxWFHl3TKM9M2vaqGsc84DrBChkhHrrLtF4gCNVCrN+OtvZX 3IZrsrizLACDlZ5HxuNNhwFkx6OlFUs+5PZi3NyNWwGRpstisB/qeTHWEF+wYs9OLSGs Pelw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gv+O+2FOn1rRZk/OlalI4rfOFxuMZnTYSj5Pxjg9KGg=; b=UW3eKEQE68Toj+DrItIUGg5D5w1WrgrYHosBJC2wGHse6H4P/GWOZqRA9+DUW3sYxY o3YM7alwkAu042FJ/rrKxixKWlXA/zxFToereOq7sTTDLvwySi9u4w1zdy9FcYmz7FjW 7CmeA5meFZpaAlj6egx8/UMRrm9pxCPuxX8mInakLXttW1cEJq+j5DyPVNLUCMRnT3mq nd7yqwXDSZYRiZcpvVuZcqpfjMg4Mr8cjZTOpI3B6rMcT3ELpGZMZ7ySbbDkA2qxwC51 3ust6AXpv6/eykWZUASgUOCmyLehdcpkUCWnaoM1hZFryHMj+eqwJ3kBEuZ1cC9tbHTS oE3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaX9fD7cinvkhPPHxdzeFAQM57ATPz1YVJb6w+A8ZiGf02DnhwtM erkrLyJr2obI24hZ32kXMNdDfgDJqHW8TxSQv/MMxA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TYOoZgO3sk7KVe463yyA5Kophz+hhvsTMkVha51KFWGXPRDat5S2SJDvyYZGB1BdTH9Ot7DnjTNFwEH4cJwDE= X-Received: by 10.159.56.153 with SMTP id t25mr2797688uaf.14.1507948020964; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:27:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.50.129 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:26:20 -0700 (PDT) From: grarpamp Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:26:20 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: General Performance Review Topics [re: Xeon Running FBSD] To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:27:02 -0000 > To get more consistent results, you may actually want to disable turboboost in the bios, and rerun the benchmarks on ALL of the operating systems. > Wow, the difference between the FreeBSDs and Linux performance is amazing and for those looking at the first time on such benchmarks not knowing much about the turbo boost issue one would definitely choose the faster one :-( > I'd appreciate results of a benchmark considering "x"... > AMDs new Epyc platform comprised also from lots of cpu cores > You might want to try enabling turbo boost. > sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq=9999 Not on the list so I could not see if you folks were CC'ing the reviewers (since the freebsd list mbox archives fail to include the important CC lines.). They certainly should be informed of review feedback. So are reviewers going to spend time on searching, mailing, and applying all manner of specific tuning and recompiling trying to figure out (and/or fix) why performance of OS 1 sucks compared to OS 2? Alternatively, who is doing hardcore reviews of unix OS? What is the demand for that? Or are they going to take the released default boxed version of any given set of OS and put it through its paces such as any relatively newcoming user might do? And thus why should, or should not, FreeBSD just ship with freq=9999, or any other generic, obvious, faq'd, or necessary tuning by default? Are we worried about melting down somone's silicon by shiping with turbo boost enabled? About some bugs? About maintaining balance of results across workloads? Is there concern about accurate protrayal of long running performance where cpu heats up thus slowing performance down to steady state, vs short performance test runs of perhaps less than a minute that some reviewers might be using? Is there bilateral participation with reviewers on upcoming review plans, methodologies, feedback, improvements, etc? A structure / group in place within FreeBSD tasked with identifying, developing, integrating performance improvements? Thoughts.