Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:39:22 +0000 From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, petefrench@ticketswitch.com Subject: Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core Message-ID: <E1J0cUE-000CkR-6X@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> In-Reply-To: <E1IxklH-000ElU-3w@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just as a followup to this - I soent some time going through all the suggestions and advice that people gave me regarding this problem. It turns out that the newer servers shipped by HP have different cache settings to the older ones on their RAID controllers, plus I get very different results from my benchmarks depending on how long the machines have been booted for and what activity has occurred on them (probably due to things ending up in cache). Upshot - if the machines are configured identically, and an identical install is made and an identical test doen then we get identical performance as expected. Part of the reason for posting this though is that a lot of people have bbeen worrying about 8x CPU performance, and this thread won't have helped. So I wanted to say that now I am convinced that (for my workload) these machines are fine. To the point where I have installed 7.0-BETA4 on the ten new 8 core servers for a very large load on th webfarm this morning. I'm pleased toio say that it went off perfectly, the servers took the load and we had no problems at all. We are running CGI scripts against mySQL under apache22 basically - which is a pretty common thing to do. Ia m using ULE and tthe amd64 version of the OS. 7.0 is excellent as far as I am concerned, and I don't think people should be worried about deploying it on 8 core machines. My experinec has been that it is fine and is also somewhat faster than 6.3 on the same hardware. -pete.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1J0cUE-000CkR-6X>