From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org  Tue Mar  7 09:13:05 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E262D0024B
 for <freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue,  7 Mar 2017 09:13:05 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz)
Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31FCB1EA5
 for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Tue,  7 Mar 2017 09:13:04 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz)
Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C0028486;
 Tue,  7 Mar 2017 10:13:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz
 [86.49.16.209])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6489128431;
 Tue,  7 Mar 2017 10:12:59 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Network performance comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and Linux
To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
References: <58BE0984.4070208@quip.cz> <20170307071018.GP15630@zxy.spb.ru>
From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>
Message-ID: <58BE799B.6080002@quip.cz>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:12:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170307071018.GP15630@zxy.spb.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:13:05 -0000

Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 2017/03/07 08:10:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>
>> There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of
>> Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections.
>> FreeBSD is the worst in this test.
>>
>> https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/19425.html
>>
>> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png
>> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/8K.png
>> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/16K.png
>>
>> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perf_cmp.pdf
>
> Is this you test?

No, it is not mine test. I just found it on the internet.

> I mean some congestion in file/page access layer on FreeBSD, can you
> re-test w/ about 1000 different files?
> I.e. every client request
>
> http://server/X_K.bin~1
> http://server/X_K.bin~2
> ....
> http://server/X_K.bin~1000
>
> not just http://server/X_K.bin