From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 13 21:00:53 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 E1B17106567B for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:00:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tt-list@simplenet.com) Received: from mx1.securemailscan.com (ob2.scaledsystems.com [209.132.1.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7CF8FC1B for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:00:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tt-list@simplenet.com) X-Warning: RFC compliance checks disabled due to whitelist X-Warning: Reverse-Path DNS check skipped 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: 2147483613 X-Envelope-From: tt-list@simplenet.com X-Envelope-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: From mta1.scaledsystems.com (209.132.1.201) by mx1.securemailscan.com (MAILFOUNDRY) id 6n66yGl6Ed2GQAAw for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:00:53 -0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 10730 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2008 21:00:53 -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 21:00:53 -0000 Message-ID: <48A34B84.4090100@simplenet.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:00:52 -0700 From: Tim Traver User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <48A1F379.2040805@simplenet.com> <48A33015.2080900@simplenet.com> <48A332FC.20600@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <48A332FC.20600@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , Jason Evans , 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 21:00:54 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>> >> 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 ???? > > It shows that if there is a difference it is probably in userland, not > the kernel. The obvious guess is the new malloc in 7.0. As for > whether it indicates a bug, someone would have to look more closely at > what ubench does. The author's description of his benchmark doesn't > inspire confidence: it does "rather senseless memory allocation and > memory to memory copying operations for another 3 mins concurrently > using several processes". > > Kris Kris, ok, so is there anything I can do to help????? or, I noticed you cc'ed some of the other performance guys...they going to check it out? Tim.