From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 14:36:20 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 6958616A4C0 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B7143FFD for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:36:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id 6352E607AA; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:36:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: "'Damian Gerow'" Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:59 -0400 Message-ID: <004101c378ac$01104f60$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 In-Reply-To: <20030911203255.GD769@sentex.net> Importance: Normal cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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 21:36:20 -0000 > Have you tried disabling newreno? -net has had pretty > extensive discussion about NFS troubles and FreeBSD around > the time of 4.7-4.8, if memory serves. Disabling newreno > seems to (have) help(ed) a large number of people. I'm not familiar with newreno, but if the backend NFS server has stayed the same, and the only thing in regards to NFS that has changed is that the production machine has gone from 4.8-S to 5.1-C whilst the development machine has sat at 5.0-R, would you still think that we don't have a stable NFS enviroment? > > Now I think I just might buy (and agree) that all the difference in > > the world would be there if I have faster ram, faster cpu > AND a faster > > bus speed. I don't know how to determine that from the > DMESG tho' (it > > didn't seem blantantly obvious to me) so I guess I'd have to try to > > dig through dell's new site (the site formerly known as the best > > hardware vendor site when you could put in a ID # and it'd tell you > > everything exactly for *your* machine instead of the family of > > machines) to find out what it's running. I could find the MB manual > > for the development one to look that up if necessary. > > Look 'em up, see what you find. Hopefully, the development > machine will be faster. And that could make all the difference, IMHO. > Ok, Looked em up. The DELL production machine uses a p4 512k Intel chip on a 133Mhz bus. The AMD POS we're using is on an Asus MB @ 266FSB with an Athlon chip & DDR. It seems that you have to step up to the 2650 model Dell in order to get the bus speed up from 133. Methinks since the production webserver isn't doing anything but serving pages over NFS, we'll sell the machine on ebay and buy a *pair* of POS machines with some kinda failover set up and wind up serving 3 times as many pageviews for 1/2 the cost of the Dell. I'll have to run that apachebench to get some solid #'s to show.. John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101