Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:28:13 +0000 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: Randy Schultz <schulra@earlham.edu> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Matthew Tippett <matthew@phoronix.com> Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server Message-ID: <CAFHbX1J-7AQpC=qGD5K9wpcoz0qK=RksWyyP34H-U2%2BpLosJsw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112210801590.49042@tdream.lly.earlham.edu> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ%2BzdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <CAFHbX1%2B5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CADWvR2hpooV4Sdkzor6oHpXWkLCz0z0UxBB_-nnrnYLeUY5oow@mail.gmail.com> <CANY-Wm8DmFxm7xwXfRcyBSu4z6fTOap%2By=Mhx%2BuBP=uJN4g3fw@mail.gmail.com> <4EF1121F.9010209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EF11B57.7090007@phoronix.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112210801590.49042@tdream.lly.earlham.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Randy Schultz <schulra@earlham.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Matthew Tippett spaketh thusly: > > -}There are still possible issues with those benchmarks. The Xeon has known > -}problems scaling from 6 to 12 cores (well enabling the hyperthreading), so you > -}may find that some platforms are penalized in performance if HT is turned on. > -}See the scaling that Phoronix has done in > -} > -}http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112166-AR-1112153AR03 > -} > -}Most systems are good with scaling on real cores, the hyperthreading (and for > -}that matter the Bulldozer thread affinity) can really break performance. > -}Different platforms have different behaviours. Benchmarking is a mucky > -}business.. > > This brings up a good point. While I don't have any hard #'s, I suspect the > vast majority of SA's do not have/spend much time tweaking this and tuning that. > Order the box, drop the OS on it, install needed bits and go. Saying "oh for > app X you need to tune these sysctl's", while it may be entirely true, kinda > throws things out the window. It seems that once one starts down that slippery > slope, it merely becomes a game of how much time to you have to "tune 1 more > thing". ;> I think Phoronix has the right idea of just grabbing a stock box > and not looking into what needs to be tweaked for a specific app. > I think that a good SA will at least consider how drives are arranged. We don't just slap ZFS on a single disk and expect magic to happen, we consider how write heavy a system will be and consider a dedicated ZIL, we consider what proportion of files will be re-read and how much application memory will be required and adjust ARC and L2ARC accordingly. Tuning and foresight are important. Cheers Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFHbX1J-7AQpC=qGD5K9wpcoz0qK=RksWyyP34H-U2%2BpLosJsw>