From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 13:35:18 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 6043D16A4BF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from perrin.nxad.com (internal.nxad.com [69.1.70.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB8643FE5 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sean@nxad.com) Received: by perrin.nxad.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CE43A2105A; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:35:14 -0700 From: Sean Chittenden To: John Straiton Message-ID: <20030911203514.GB74421@perrin.nxad.com> References: <20030911175227.GQ769@sentex.net> <002101c378a0$75308380$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002101c378a0$75308380$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> 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/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: 'Damian Gerow' cc: mad-ml@madness.at Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? 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: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:35:18 -0000 > > Hrmmm.... I wonder if 5.0-R is faster than 4-STABLE? > > The question is really, is it faster than 4.8-S AND 5.1-C. That was > the reason we updated the production machine to 5.1 from 4.8... To > determine if that was a factor at all. I was hoping that 5.X was > just *that much faster* but it would appear that it's not the case > unless 5.0-R is *that much faster* than 5.1-C. Post your kernel configs, or better yet, do a diff -u between the 5.0-R and the 5.1-C kernel configs. I bet dime to dollar you've got some debugging options enabled in the 5.1-C config. At the very least you haven't remove the debugging options from your malloc options. > I too have had a periodic problem with auto negotiation on Cisco > gear. I wish it was something simple like that here but it'd appear > that we're all synced up just fine. If you weren't sync'ed, you'd be getting about 10-20Kbps, not 87Mbps: your network gear isn't the issue, neither is DNS. -RELEASE has all debugging opts turned off, where as -CURRENT has them enabled. 4.* should be faster than 5.x for the time being, but as locking work continues, that gap should get smaller and smaller. -sc -- Sean Chittenden