From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 11 03:41:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03CE987; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:41:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C8022E4; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (ppp121-45-246-96.lns20.per2.internode.on.net [121.45.246.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9B3eqQ2048754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:40:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Message-ID: <52577342.4090801@elischer.org> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:40:50 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966? References: <20131007172804.GA7641@albert.catwhisker.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, David Wolfskill X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:41:51 -0000 On 10/10/13 10:02 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 07/10/2013 19:28, David Wolfskill wrote:> At work, we have a bunch of > machines that developers use to build some >> software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxxxxxx >> (with a few local patches, which have since been committed to stable/8), >> and the software is built within a 32-bit jail. >> >> The hardware includes 2 packages of 6 physical cores each @3.47GHz >> (Intel X5690); SMT is enabled (so the scheduler sees hw.ncpu == >> 24). The memory on the machines was recently increased from 6GB >> to 96GB. >> >> I am trying to set up a replacement host environment on my test machine; >> the current environment there is FreeBSD/amd64 8.4-STABLE @r255966; this >> environment achieves a couple of objectives: >> >> * It has no local patches. >> * The known problems (e.g., with mfiutil failing to report battery >> status accurately) are believed to be addressed appropriately. >> >> However: when I do comparison software builds, the new environment is >> taking about 12% longer to perform the same work (comparing against a >> fair sample of the deployed machines): > So, the test machine is exactly the same as the old machines? Does the > hardware upgrade coincide with 8.4-STABLE upgrade? > > At a guess, you also might be hitting a problem with either NUMA (which > would mean the difference you encountered is pretty much random, > depending on how the memory from your processes was allocated), or a > generic scheduler issue (IIRC, FreeBSD 9 series was found to be much > more scalable for > 16 CPUs). > > Just a thought - you *could* set up an 8-STABLE jail in a 9-STABLE > environment if you need the 8-STABLE libraries for your software. > > > OR, take the new kernel and use it to boot the old system then compare times.