From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 27 00:44:50 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB3316A4CE for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:44:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m18.mx.aol.com (imo-m18.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.208]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D09D43D4C for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:44:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from EM1897@aol.com) Received: from EM1897@aol.com by imo-m18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id k.59.243cc37d (15874); Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-r33 (mblk-r33.mblk.aol.com [152.163.179.23]) by air-id07.mx.aol.com (v104.18) with ESMTP id MAILINID71-3e02424601e46b; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:44:20 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:44:20 -0500 Message-Id: <8C7007D3FB20275-A38-3B306@mblk-r33.sysops.aol.com> From: em1897@aol.com References: <1641928994.20050326192811@wanadoo.fr> <8C700529A2DFD74-A44-3A157@mblk-d34.sysops.aol.com> <439876144.20050326220638@wanadoo.fr> <8C7006AE7E80573-FAC-3B652@mblk-r28.sysops.aol.com> <49251524.20050326234521@wanadoo.fr> <20050326232753.GA64620@grover.logicsquad.net> <4245F61E.2000300@cloudview.com> <20050327002325.GB64620@grover.logicsquad.net> Received: from 24.47.89.83 by mblk-r33.sysops.aol.com (152.163.179.23) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:44:20 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <20050327002325.GB64620@grover.logicsquad.net> X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.0.0.11984 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulh@logicsquad.net, jpp@cloudview.com X-AOL-IP: 152.163.179.23 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hyper threading. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:44:50 -0000 Uh, thats not the correct load average to use. Use the numbers obtained from top or systat. Those loads will show Zero load when you're routing 100K pps. It doesnt measure kernel load. -----Original Message----- From: Paul A. Hoadley To: John Pettitt Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:53:25 +0930 Subject: Re: hyper threading. Hello, On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:54:06PM -0800, John Pettitt wrote: > > Paul A. Hoadley wrote: > > >I note a slight difference in the 10 minute load average in favour > >of the uniprocessor run (0.00 vs 0.10 in the hyperthreading run), > >though I doubt this alone could account for a 15% difference in > >total score. > > Notice the HT run had load on the box (0.31) when it started. If > you're going to run benchmarks you need to start with a clean reboot > before each run and make sure all the background daemons have been > killed and and the load is zero. You are absolutely right, and I did note the difference in load averages. I'm not making any claims---someone asked for measurements, and I happened to have these handy. -- Paul. w http://logicsquad.net/ h http://paul.hoadley.name/