From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 31 08:23:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEAF16A4CF for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E034F43D41 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:23:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i2VGMOUS048109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:22:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2VGLUhn049699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:21:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2VGLUCK044044; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:21:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2VGLTU8044043; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:21:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:21:29 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= Message-ID: <20040331162128.GW32646@cicely12.cicely.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.61 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on cicely5.cicely.de cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance of jailed processes X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:23:04 -0000 On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 06:58:28PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Can anyone explain why jailed processes seem to perform much worse > than non-jailed processes in recent -CURRENT? > > Specifically, running a query against a remote MySQL server from > inside a jail takes an order of magnitude more time than from outside > the jail. Tcpdump shows that the TCP packets carrying the result are > evenly spaced, so this is not a matter of the server timing out on a > DNS lookup or anything like that. > > Running a configure script also takes much longer inside the jail than > outisde, and again, progress is even (though slow), so it is clearly > not a matter of DNS timing out. Do the jails all have the same malloc.conf as the base system? -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de