From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 17 09:09:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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 A729916A4DA for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:09:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ah@shadow.splashground.de) Received: from shadow.splashground.de (shadow.splashground.de [85.214.34.252]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE97643D6A for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:09:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ah@shadow.splashground.de) Received: (qmail 23391 invoked by uid 1001); 17 Jul 2006 11:09:57 +0200 Date: 17 Jul 2006 11:09:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20060717090957.23390.qmail@shadow.splashground.de> User-Agent: Emai/0.0.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060716114546.B1799@ganymede.hub.org> <20060717030249.GB3344@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20060717030249.GB3344@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> From: Andreas Hauser To: Brooks Davis X-License: BSD X-Addicted: yeah Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, User Freebsd Subject: Re: Is 6.x slower then 4.x ... ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:09:58 -0000 brooks wrote @ Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:02:50 -0500: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:49:35AM -0300, User Freebsd wrote: > FreeBSD 6 is slower than 4 for some things and faster for others. That > should be expected since fine grained locking involves increased numbers > of expensive atomic operations (which are particularly bad on Intel > P4 and Xeon systems). The gain is that we've got significantly more > parallelism in many areas (for example, see kris's I/O benchmarking > presented at BSDCan). Looking at it as a thought experiment, you should > expect microbenchmarks to perform worse, sometimes much worse. If > your application looks like those microbenchmarks that's going to be a > problem, if not it may or may not be. OK. Kris presented exactly one benchmark were 6 is better (30%) and that is with sync mounts. Sorry, but i don't know many people running async mounts. Since none of the benchmarks from people seem to have influence on you, why not provide benchmarks, application ones, that show that 6 is good in anything performance wise. Until then we keep thinking it is worse, since our benchmarking shows it to be worse (of course we are doing it all wrong ...). > In short the black and white question you are asking makes little > sense. :) It usually boils down to a black and white question like "Use or do not use?". -- Andy