From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 22 13:13:29 2010 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 0F5D3106566B for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:13:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6C78FC19 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P9HQz-0001Yq-GD for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:13:25 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:13:25 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:13:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:13:21 +0200 Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <20101020174854.GZ21226@albert.catwhisker.org> <20101021215330.GA86224@dan.emsphone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20101018 Thunderbird/3.0.8 In-Reply-To: <20101021215330.GA86224@dan.emsphone.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Subject: Re: Possible evidence of performance regression for 8.1-S (vs. 7.1) 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: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:13:29 -0000 On 10/21/10 23:53, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Oct 20), David Wolfskill said: >> Almost 2 years ago, we migrated from a lightly-patched 6.2-R to 7.1-R with >> 5 commits that were made to 7.1-S backported to it. On the same hardware >> (not the HP mentioned above), I measured a 35% reduction in elapsed time >> for one particular form of the build in question. This was encouraging. >> >> A couple of days ago, I updated the active slice on my 8.x reference >> machine to 8.1-STABLE #5 r214029 and proceeded to start some timed builds; >> here are some fairly raw timing data: >> >> Start Stop real user sys OS >> 1287436357 1287461948 25590.99 81502.22 18115.07 8.1-S >> 1287462797 1287488766 25969.26 81452.14 17920.14 8.1-S >> 1287489641 1287515287 25645.84 81548.40 18256.52 8.1-S >> 1287516151 1287541481 25329.64 81546.23 18294.10 8.1-S >> 1287542355 1287568599 26244.59 81431.47 17902.39 8.1-S >> >> 1287525363 1287546846 21483.13 82628.20 21703.09 7.1-R+ >> 1287548005 1287569100 21094.63 82853.19 22185.02 7.1-R+ >> 1287570300 1287591371 21071.33 82756.81 21943.22 7.1-R+ > > An observation: on 8.1, both user and sys times are less, but real time is > higher. So 8.1 finished the build using less CPU, but spent more time > waiting for something else. Disk? Network? I don't suppose the machines NFS? AFAIK NFS was changed in 8.x?