From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 15:22:38 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2970216A417 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:22:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org) Received: from smtp-out2.tiscali.nl (smtp-out2.tiscali.nl [195.241.79.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5DC13C4B8 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:22:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org) Received: from [195.241.149.28] (helo=guido.klop.ws) by smtp-out2.tiscali.nl with smtp (Tiscali http://www.tiscali.nl) id 1Iu89s-0003jG-Az for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:03:32 +0100 Received: (qmail 2663 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2007 15:03:29 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO guido.klop.ws) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Nov 2007 15:03:29 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:03:27 +0100 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: "Ronald Klop" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4741905E.8050300@chistydom.ru> <20071119140019.V80667@fledge.watson.org> <4741A3A8.4010803@chistydom.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4741A3A8.4010803@chistydom.ru> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.24 (FreeBSD) Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:22:38 -0000 On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:54:32 +0100, Alexey Popov wrote: > Hi > > Robert Watson wrote: >> FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of >> cores, and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I >> see you're trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 >> beta instead? Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the >> 7.0 kernel rather than "options SCHED_4BSD". > I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: > > last pid: 1063; load averages: 22.75, 13.76, 6.31 up 0+00:07:24 > 17:53:49 > 56 processes: 33 running, 23 sleeping > CPU states: 26.5% user, 0.0% nice, 68.1% system, 0.3% interrupt, 5.1% > idle > Mem: 365M Active, 20M Inact, 102M Wired, 664K Cache, 46M Buf, 3419M Free > Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU > COMMAND > 1019 www 1 101 0 101M 51244K RUN 6 0:37 26.86% httpd > 1040 www 1 -4 0 92476K 42956K RUN 1 0:36 26.76% httpd > 1004 www 1 -4 0 92476K 42864K RUN 4 0:38 25.98% httpd > 1018 www 1 101 0 91452K 41736K CPU3 3 0:37 25.68% httpd > 1000 www 1 101 0 92476K 42544K RUN 0 0:36 25.29% httpd > 1026 www 1 101 0 93500K 39900K CPU0 0 0:35 25.20% httpd > 1021 www 1 101 0 101M 49432K RUN 4 0:37 25.10% httpd > 1024 www 1 101 0 93500K 44416K RUN 5 0:37 25.10% httpd > 1020 www 1 101 0 94524K 43684K RUN 0 0:37 25.00% httpd > 1030 www 1 101 0 96576K 46004K RUN 3 0:36 25.00% httpd > 1031 www 1 101 0 101M 50956K RUN 3 0:37 24.66% httpd > 1025 www 1 101 0 94524K 43880K RUN 5 0:36 24.56% httpd > 1041 www 1 101 0 92476K 41792K RUN 2 0:36 24.56% httpd > 1022 www 1 101 0 101M 48932K RUN 5 0:36 24.27% httpd You have a lot of free memory. Maybe you can wait a little to let it fill the cache or let it use more buf's. This could explain that the system is spending a lot if time in 'system'. Ronald. -- Ronald Klop Amsterdam, The Netherlands