From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 6 19:45:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923E616A4D4 for ; Fri, 6 May 2005 19:45:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE7743D67 for ; Fri, 6 May 2005 19:45:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.21] (rat.samsco.home [192.168.254.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j46Jp15s007910; Fri, 6 May 2005 13:51:01 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <427BC92A.9030603@samsco.org> Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 13:44:42 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050321 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <20050506191600.GA77799@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20050506191600.GA77799@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ADDRESS_IN_SUBJECT, ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [kris@obsecurity.org: Re: Benchmarking mpsafevfs with parallel tarball extraction] X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 19:45:39 -0000 sparc64 is slow in general, and seems to have gotten significantly slower in the past 6 months. It took me 30+ hours to build a 6-current release (including docs and ports) earlier this week. A year ago it took closer to 20 hours IIRC. This is on a Ultra2 with 300MHz CPUs, 512MB of RAM, and two disks on the local esp controller. Definitely much slower than it should be. Scott Kris Kennaway wrote: > BTW, any ideas why md is so slow on sparc64? > > Kris > > ----- Forwarded message from Kris Kennaway ----- > > Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:48:52 -0700 > From: Kris Kennaway > To: Kris Kennaway > Cc: smp@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: Benchmarking mpsafevfs with parallel tarball extraction > In-Reply-To: <20050506183529.GA46411@xor.obsecurity.org> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i > > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:35:29AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >>I might be bumping into the bandwidth of md here - when I ran less >>rigorous tests with lower concurrency of extractions I seemed to be >>getting marginally better performance (about an effective concurrency >>of 2.2 for both 3 and 10 simultaneous extractions - so at least it >>doesn't seem to degrade badly). Or this might be reflecting VFS lock >>contention (which there is certainly a lot of, according to mutex >>profiling traces). > > > I suspect that I am hitting the md bandwidth: > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/md0 bs=1024k count=500 > 500+0 records in > 500+0 records out > 524288000 bytes transferred in 9.501760 secs (55177988 bytes/sec) > > which is a lot worse than I expected (even for a 400MHz CPU). > > For some reason I get better performance writing to a filesystem > mounted on this md: > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1024k count=500 > 500+0 records in > 500+0 records out > 524288000 bytes transferred in 7.943042 secs (66005946 bytes/sec) > # rm foo > # dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1024k count=500 > 500+0 records in > 500+0 records out > 524288000 bytes transferred in 7.126929 secs (73564364 bytes/sec) > # rm foo > # dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1024k count=500 > 500+0 records in > 500+0 records out > 524288000 bytes transferred in 7.237668 secs (72438804 bytes/sec) > > If the write bandwidth is only 50-70MB/sec, then it won't be hard to > saturate, so I won't probe the full scalability of mpsafevfs here. > > Kris > > > ----- End forwarded message -----