From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 03:14:17 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87BBF37 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:14:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56534948 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:14:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn17so9069507wib.16 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+lAV9OeyJ0k6kUM5kzLfV7urGePkJyYXybbuanoQ2RA=; b=0WKGIzGi+yzTo1SHfsrbXI3eS/vZgBvgjUld2UpHatBWRL2vEBXITFlEkOBLN1JgxT EusJGLl0tmrgg0+cyJgALp7vu+jIH+r34OoUo3o/IyWJrXVR6S2lBMEqDzPQTqQ4Do0X Od2BmTxcbLTBy8+CxDI6GEM2Fl2HayPB3U1IzDBX42lnZoNw+AHVaW1h1ToUauCJOpjp ZOMpNpwbVKauVpa8ry7jAA0cRdkX7W/l7IgBsA74LM4b9GlcAwkyTK+TlsX3ld9gYXT2 u7KU6Co7ZNvuMq+dsqz4CFAAug/W6zMwIA8aUOUqR1N+QqDFSJ8VclfqO8UeHjeLU9K8 gb6Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.6 with SMTP id f6mr18712885wix.26.1364094856469; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.108.130 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MvbC1WvHOXFt06_KQC2SYwEWdWs Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 From: Adrian Chadd To: Adam Vande More Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Daniel Bilik , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:14:17 -0000 Yup, that one. I wonder if that has anything to do here.. Adrian On 23 March 2013 17:20, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I recall that there were significant issues with jemalloc on >> computational loads, primarily because of the alignment jemalloc ends >> up giving to various allocation sizes and the cache-busting behaviour >> of that. >> >> Does anyone remember the thread in which that happened? Maybe someone >> posted a patch that lets people quickly tweak jemalloc to try and >> avoid this? > > > I think you mean this one: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2013-January/041624.html >