From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 15 05:21:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21962 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from omnix.net (omnix.net [194.183.217.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA21937 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:21:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from didier@omnix.net) Received: from localhost (didier@localhost) by omnix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA22843; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 12:20:34 GMT (envelope-from didier@omnix.net) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:20:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Didier Derny To: support@yard.de cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Yard/FreeBSD Problem Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Hi, >I ran your (small version) program on our Linux site. It's compared to >FreeBSD 15 times faster, which indicates a FreeBSD problem. When the program >is running on FreeBSD, vmstat reports at least 95% idle time, which also >points to a problem in the kernel. Results of my personal test this morning (on the same machine) FreeBSD: FreeBSD 3.0-SNAPSHOT (Mai 98) Linux: Suse 5.2 Test on 7461 rows FreeBSD with ...ack_delayed=1 several hours FreeBSD with ...ack_delayed=0 1m48 Linux 5m19 My personal idea on this problem: I suppose that there is a slight problem with the yard handling of the network and that this problemcan be amplified by FreeBSD. After having ran FreeBSD for years on large servers I can hardly beleive that the problem only come from FreeBSD. One of the tests that could be done would be to convert the yard database to msql and see the results. -- Didier Derny didier@omnix.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message