From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 24 14:53:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 C4B9616A41F; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:53:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2418E43D48; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:53:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from pumice3.sentex.ca (pumice3.sentex.ca [64.7.153.26]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9OErlDM097439; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:53:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by pumice3.sentex.ca (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9OErla8094636; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:53:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9OErk6M038800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:53:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024104045.05b3df90@64.7.153.2> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:53:41 -0400 To: Robert Watson , performance@freebsd.org From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <20051005133730.R87201@fledge.watson.org> References: <20051005133730.R87201@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 64.7.153.18 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 64.7.153.26 Cc: Subject: Re: Call for performance evaluation: net.isr.direct 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, 24 Oct 2005 14:53:49 -0000 At 12:12 PM 05/10/2005, Robert Watson wrote: >Obviously, this is about two things: performance, and stability. Many of us ... >Of particular interest is if changing to direct dispatch hurts >performance in your environment, and understanding why that is. I enabled this last Monday on 2 SMP boxes in our spam / virus scanning cluster. Unfortunately, we had to implement some other changes (local dcc server) that would impact the performance numbers, but I can report that it is stable after a week. I am going to disable the setting tonight and go back to net.isr.direct=0 to get a day or two worth of stats to see what that does to the average message processing time and overall load average. But it does seem stable. The 2 boxes are dual core machines (Intel D830 and AMD 3800 X2) running 6.0RC1 from last week. ---Mike