Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:22:41 +0100 From: "Claus Guttesen" <kometen@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Alexey Popov <lol@chistydom.ru> Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD Message-ID: <b41c75520711201322o87862a4ida782ba64d77257b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47434E01.8020004@FreeBSD.org> References: <4741905E.8050300@chistydom.ru> <fhs7hp$2es$2@ger.gmane.org> <4741A7DA.2050706@chistydom.ru> <4741DA15.9000308@FreeBSD.org> <47429DB8.7040504@chistydom.ru> <4742ADFE.40902@FreeBSD.org> <4742C46A.1060701@chistydom.ru> <47432F77.3030606@FreeBSD.org> <97FEA818-B54F-4981-A0A4-440D1DF5AB7A@gid.co.uk> <47434E01.8020004@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > FWIW, we are seeing 2 x quad-core 2.66GHz outperform (per core) 2 x > > dual-core 3GHz on the same type of m/b, apparently because of better > > bandwidth to memory. However, this is on a compute-intensive workload > > running 1 job per core so would be pretty insensitive to > > scheduler/locking issues. > > Alexey's problem is pretty specific to filesystem performance. Good to > hear though :) If that is the conclusion, wouldn't it make sense trying a different disk-controller then? -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b41c75520711201322o87862a4ida782ba64d77257b>