From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 7 13:41:50 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5295916A419 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:41:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.248]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5096713C43E for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:41:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c14so189575anc for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:41:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=gDca91+oLBAAZZec1ysXNVtZ871qt+z23YUaJDu+yEM=; b=HexcF+QKPCa3gkc176XPkdLHSB7xgFj5UITHBgBXuD+DYzd2c6BMHF6y+SPb7tKc4HrwlOcNvLTlDWAk+uvBagTLzF3i7LNQCJtyVRnn/RKBA2UG+y4GnyySR/hz/7eKRiFO+37hpw5mr0LL0i5DscWjyr0f7gpsyt+q0Gpaxnw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=xi34RU8la/4JiEFBRY9NAvZil7z5jdf9VGXvkJp5YyNnKLWWig8jJGYEwB4sjj5FL/TMVegkL/oDnvJJI8jorNTp+7UVP833qEV7TQ27CG+pTDshoAebxeEPi7ZqVI43WlV/rg9X8GjQjZPfKqoJUiStPQKUpJiPWD3Chv2SkFI= Received: by 10.100.190.15 with SMTP id n15mr9316590anf.1197034907713; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:41:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.154.2 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 05:41:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:41:47 +0100 From: "Claus Guttesen" To: "Pete French" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:41:50 -0000 > 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). What settings are there on the cache? I have a DL 380 G5 with 2 x dual-core woodcrest and 512 MB BB cache running as a db-server (postgresql) and two DL 360 G5 with with 2 x 4-core and 256 MB BB cache running as web-servers. > 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. I will second this even though I do not have hard facts to base this assumption on. I have - as mentioned above - two web-servers running 7.0 beta 2 on a 8-core and is satisfied with the performance. But my only comparison are two 2 x dual-core opterons (4-way) where the 8-core handles approx. twice as much load. But maby I should expect 2.5 as much performance since the quad-core is a newer cpu and the opterons are getting two years old. I also upgraded our db-server from 6.2 RC1 to 7.0 beta 3 on our DL 380 G5 (4-way) because the server was getting constrained on ressources. I could either replace my 10K rpm drives (in raid 1+0) with 15K ditto which would require a downtime which we could not afford at this time or I could upgrade from 6.2 to 7.0. The upgrade took 10 min. Kernel and userland had all ready been compiled on the web-server. The upgrade was worthwhile and the db-server is performing better. On Sunday I will have some load-numbers and post them on Monday. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare