From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 13 19:03:51 2008 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 0A208106566C for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:03:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tt-list@simplenet.com) Received: from mx2.securemailscan.com (ob2.scaledsystems.com [209.132.1.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70AC8FC1D for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:03:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tt-list@simplenet.com) X-Warning: RFC compliance checks disabled due to whitelist X-Warning: Maximum message size check skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: System filters skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: Domain filters skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: User filters skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: Anti-Spam check skipped due to whitelist X-Whitelist: 2147483549 X-Envelope-From: tt-list@simplenet.com X-Envelope-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: From mta2.scaledsystems.com (209.132.1.202) by mx2.securemailscan.com (MAILFOUNDRY) id kHHs9GlqEd2RMgAw for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:03:50 -0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 90500 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2008 19:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (tt@simplenet.com@75.80.130.243) by mail.ssl.simplenet.com with ESMTPA; 13 Aug 2008 19:03:50 -0000 Message-ID: <48A33015.2080900@simplenet.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:03:49 -0700 From: Tim Traver User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <48A1F379.2040805@simplenet.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: 7.0 CPU and Memory Performance 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, 13 Aug 2008 19:03:51 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Traver wrote: > >> I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old >> versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before >> doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts >> that I would run would fare between the two versions, and the results >> are somewhat confusing... > > There are potentially a lot of variables here, you migh want to try > fiddling with the following and see what difference it makes: > > (1) Try both 4BSD and ULE in 7.0 -- they have different properties, > and at the > very least it would be nice to see what impact it has. > > (2) Statically compile the 5.4 binary, and run the same binary on both > 5.4 and > 7.0 -- there have been lots of compiler changes, which might be > relevant. > > Also, can you confirm that you're running either 32-bit or 64-bit > kernels consistently on both versions of FreeBSD? > > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge > > Robert, ok, I looked and it looks like the port compiles statically, and I was able to grab the binary from the old disk and move it over to the new one... here is info now on how it is linked : [root ~]# ldd ubench.5.4 ubench.5.4: libm.so.3 => /usr/local/lib/compat/libm.so.3 (0x2807e000) libc.so.5 => /usr/local/lib/compat/libc.so.5 (0x28099000) [root ~]# ldd /usr/local/bin/ubench /usr/local/bin/ubench: libm.so.5 => /lib/libm.so.5 (0x2807f000) libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x28094000) where ubench is the locally compiled one... For reference, here are the old stats FreeBSD 5.4 - CPU 112,721 - MEM - 146,483 FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 177,339 - MEM - 95,920 And here is the run of the ubench.5.4 binary: FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 139,623 - MEM - 207,180 And a rerun of the FreeBSD 7.0 ubench making sure there is absolutely no activity on the box FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 200,562 - MEM - 107,695 That run is a little better than the previous one, but there seems to still be quite a difference in the memory tests... Does that show anything ???? Tim.