From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 12 17:37:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBFD16A404 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:37:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2FD43D6E for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:37:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k3CHaoqn016793; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:37:17 -0400 Received: (from defang@localhost) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.0/Submit) id k3CHalvP016779; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:36:47 -0400 Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (envelope-sender ) (MIMEDefang) with ESMTP id k3CHai1I016768; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20060412040326.GA94545@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1144795412.81364.18.camel@localhost> <20060412040326.GA94545@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:36:43 -0400 To: Kris Kennaway , "David E. Cross" From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.3 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: swap performance under 6.1 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: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:37:30 -0000 At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +0000, David E. Cross wrote: >> I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap >> performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not >> done". >> > > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought > > was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel > > on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) Note... > > and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would > > be eager to help track this down if someone could give me > > some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would > > seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. > >I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, >but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and >quantify any performance differences here - so far it's >just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including >mine) after upgrading from 4.x. In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs 6.1-@april-5th. Those are the two installations he has on his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu