From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 4 13:34:28 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D925816A41A for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [82.208.36.70]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6654213C4F2 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E0C19E02E; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:34:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r3a200.net.upc.cz [213.220.192.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B76819E02D; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:34:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4755576D.2020801@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:34:37 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: cz, cs, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Evans References: <20071201213732.GA16638@cannabis.dataforce.net> <1497741406.20071201230441@rulez.sk> <20071202174540.GA29572@cannabis.dataforce.net> <200712020844.49718.linimon@FreeBSD.org> <4753C9E4.1060200@chistydom.ru> <20071203114037.G79674@fledge.watson.org> <47542372.3040303@chistydom.ru> <20071203163353.J79674@fledge.watson.org> <47551C1C.3000903@chistydom.ru> <47553170.90409@bulinfo.net> <1196771103.71694.8.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1196771103.71694.8.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:34:28 -0000 Tom Evans wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 13:00 +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > >>Krassimir Slavchev wrote: >> >> >>>There is another report for such problems: >>> >>>http://blog.insidesystems.net/articles/2007/04/09/what-did-i-do-wrong >> >>Of course - FreeBSD 6.x is really bad at SMP where number of CPUs is >>larger then about 2 and the loads include much kernel work (e.g. IO, >>context switches). Numeric tasks (SSL) don't depend on the kernel and so >>they scale ok. See >>http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/Scalability%20Update.pdf for >>details. >> >>Another issue is interesting in this thread: that apparently 7.0 also >>has a well defined workload where it fails. >> > > > There is also his follow up to that post, comparing postgres on 6.2 with > 7.0 (ULE and 4BSD schedulers). > > http://blog.insidesystems.net/articles/2007/04/11/postgresql-scaling-on-6-2-and-7-0 > > I'm very excited about getting some 7.0 servers into testing prior to > deployment as production mysql boxes. Having run 7-CURRENT on my lappy > for best part of 15 months, I think its supersmashinggreat :) I know this thread is about SMP scalling, but most of my machines are UP (Sun Fire X2100) so I run my own synthetic benchmarks (super-smack on MySQL 5.0.45 and ab on Apache 2.2.6) on an old box with AMD Barton 2500+ with 512MB RAM. I was a little disappointed, because FreeBSD 6.2 UP behaves better than FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 (4BSD and ULE tested). super-smack on 6.2 Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 6000000 0 0 15061.63 super-smack on 7.0 (no metter if 4BSD or ULE) Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 6000000 0 0 14320.31 used command: super-smack select-key.smack 10 300000 results are from the second run The Apache Benchmark result was same on 6.2 and 7.0 (about 165 req/s), but on 7.0 Apache forks more processes (MPM prefork was used) than on 6.2. On 6.2 Apache has about 40 httpd processes running, but on 7.0 it has about 130 and console response was very very bad. example of top from 7.0 running ab -c 15 -n 50000 http://192.168.1.164/phpinfo.php last pid: 1650; load averages: 83.80, 33.58, 13.71 up 0+00:32:44 12:09:16 170 processes: 126 running, 43 sleeping, 1 zombie CPU states: 65.9% user, 0.0% nice, 14.1% system, 19.9% interrupt, 0.0% idle Mem: 140M Active, 20M Inact, 64M Wired, 5028K Cache, 34M Buf, 9708K Free Swap: 512M Total, 41M Used, 470M Free, 8% Inuse Console response was better with ULE than 4BSD, but stil not so smooth like in 6.2 So I will postpone upgrade of all my 6.2 UP machines until 7.x UP will behave better or 6.x will reach EOL. Miroslav Lachman