From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 24 07:42:49 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA6A621
 for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:42:49 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz)
Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (mail.neosystem.cz [94.23.169.88])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED756F1F
 for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.neosystem.cz (unknown [127.0.10.15])
 by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99A8CDAB;
 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:42:46 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.neosystem.cz
Received: from neon.sn.neosystem.cz (unknown [172.19.9.2])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.neosystem.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE727CDA5;
 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:42:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:38:02 +0100
From: Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz>
To: davide.damico@contactlab.com
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3
Message-Id: <20130324083802.8289efb593ff186bd358cb87@neosystem.cz>
In-Reply-To: <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it>
References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com>
 <CAF3xD3nDDUYB94TS9AUUQ=CPztB1S8mU4fRwNB5GupmK8MgwXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <142597a8659b43db8665aa1f055d2ff1@sys.tomatointeractive.it>
Organization: neosystem.cz
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:27:02 +0000
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:42:49 -0000

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:59:29 +0100
Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> wrote:

> I'll try the 'simple' dataset, but do you think I have some chance to 
> "solve" the issue?

Not sure. But in case you'll get much more similar (CentOS vs. FreeBSD)
results from "simple" OLTP test, as opposed to very differrent numbers
for  "complex", it's probable that the cause can be somewhere in jemalloc,
as we've observed in our tests. And at this point, we can rule out
anything else (ZFS, scheduler, etc.) and knowledgeable people can focus
on one specific piece of code.

--
						Daniel Bilik
						neosystem.cz