From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 5 23:58:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE8937B40C for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 23:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from perrin.int.nxad.com (internal.ext.nxad.com [69.1.70.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E65943F85 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 23:58:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sean@perrin.int.nxad.com) Received: by perrin.int.nxad.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C3C3720F00; Mon, 5 May 2003 23:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 23:58:37 -0700 From: Sean Chittenden To: Alan Jorge Markus Message-ID: <20030506065837.GT94932@perrin.int.nxad.com> References: <001901c3137b$cc8d66f0$044ec7c8@AJMNOTEBOOK> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001901c3137b$cc8d66f0$044ec7c8@AJMNOTEBOOK> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-PGP-Key: finger seanc@FreeBSD.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3849 3760 1AFE 7B17 11A0 83A6 DD99 E31F BC84 B341 X-Web-Homepage: http://sean.chittenden.org/ cc: freebsd-performance Subject: Re: FReebsd 5.0 network performance problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 06:58:41 -0000 > I have two servers, one Freebsd 5.0 running squid and another server > with identical hardware configuration, running Freebsd 4.8 and > squid, with the same number of requisitions. > > The problem: > I have the same hardware in both servers, with almost the same > configuration, but running diferent versions of freebsd, but the machine > load in my freebsd running the version 5.0 is 1.40 while the load in the 4.8 > server is 0.38. > > I believe that something in my network configuration maybe wrong. > Looking at my 5.0 server: Don't use 5.0 for production. If you are going to put anything in production, use a _very_ recent -CURRENT. Even then, 5.0 isn't as fast as the -STABLE series at the moment because it's still in an awkward transition between locking via giant and fine grain locking. If you'd like to help figure out performance problems for -CURRENT however, have you tried running any kernel profiling to see where the kernel is spending it's cycles? -sc -- Sean Chittenden