From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 26 07:41:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8599516A4CE; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:41:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp [202.249.10.124]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD3D43D49; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:41:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp) Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [2001:200:0:8002:896d:2657:a83f:e731]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247AE15210; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:41:30 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:41:47 +0900 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <41C8BD1C.9090507@freebsd.org> References: <41C8BD1C.9090507@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND9 performance issues with SMP X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:41:32 -0000 >>>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:17:32 -0700, >>>>> Scott Long said: >> C. (for comparison) SuSE Linux (kernel 2.6.4, glibc 2.3.3) on the >> same box I used with experiment B >> >> threads BIND BIND++ >> 0 16117 >> 1 13707 17835 >> 2 16493 26946 >> 3 16478 32688 >> 4 14517 36090 >> >> While "pure BIND9" does not provide better performance with multiple >> CPUs either (and the optimizations in BIND++ are equally effective), >> the penalty with multiple threads is much smaller. I guess this is >> because Linux handles lock contentions much better than FreeBSD. >> > Do you have any comparisons to NetBSD or Solaris? Comparing to Linux > often results in comparing apples to oranges since there is > long-standing suspicion that Linux cuts corners where BSD does not. I've never done this type of test for NetBSD, since as far as I know NetBSD is not very SMP-aware (does this change in, e.g., NetBSD 2.0?). I've checked Solaris with similar tests, but I could only use a 2-processor sparc box. So, the results would not be very informative. FWIW, however, Solaris performed quite well with 2 processors. > Also, would you be able to re-run your tests using the THR thread > package? If I have another chance and test environments (I've lost the access to the test environments). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp