From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 13:28:16 2011 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 A38D81065670 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:28:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tevans.uk@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com (mail-vx0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254EA8FC13 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vcbfk1 with SMTP id fk1so9985350vcb.13 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:28:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bjYohqK6GPXcePTcBDs2VJshagtqgaLkkh4KYs6XzbQ=; b=DNlQ2Rj46qSKq/VUpPJSuoWk+kUox8TS45mAMOTGypeS+OGF8ubWyyGnN7ezSuE9li IFzx9hbdBk16B2czHjuk62zDTaq6Y088oCI9DsUvGn9eG0H1qTY6jZHwDHYLGVh3YwNy 3ZyoN2kO+06mj/7XnKdFpXglxI1Cqm2YcEtIQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.66.70 with SMTP id m6mr4254367vci.57.1324474093738; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.162.202 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:28:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EF1121F.9010209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EF11B57.7090007@phoronix.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:28:13 +0000 Message-ID: From: Tom Evans To: Randy Schultz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Matthew Tippett Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server 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: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:28:16 -0000 On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Randy Schultz wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Matthew Tippett spaketh thusly: > > -}There are still possible issues with those benchmarks. =C2=A0The Xeon h= as 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 turn= ed 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 (a= nd for > -}that matter the Bulldozer thread affinity) can really break performance= . > -}Different platforms have different behaviours. =C2=A0Benchmarking is a = mucky > -}business.. > > This brings up a good point. =C2=A0While I don't have any hard #'s, I sus= pect the > vast majority of SA's do not have/spend much time tweaking this and tunin= g that. > Order the box, drop the OS on it, install needed bits and go. =C2=A0Sayin= g "oh for > app X you need to tune these sysctl's", while it may be entirely true, ki= nda > throws things out the window. =C2=A0It seems that once one starts down th= at slippery > slope, it merely becomes a game of how much time to you have to "tune 1 m= ore > thing". =C2=A0;> =C2=A0I think Phoronix has the right idea of just grabbi= ng 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 Tom