Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:35:14 -0700 From: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> To: John Straiton <jsmailing@clickcom.com> Cc: mad-ml@madness.at Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? Message-ID: <20030911203514.GB74421@perrin.nxad.com> In-Reply-To: <002101c378a0$75308380$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> References: <20030911175227.GQ769@sentex.net> <002101c378a0$75308380$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Hrmmm.... I wonder if 5.0-R is faster than 4-STABLE? > > The question is really, is it faster than 4.8-S AND 5.1-C. That was > the reason we updated the production machine to 5.1 from 4.8... To > determine if that was a factor at all. I was hoping that 5.X was > just *that much faster* but it would appear that it's not the case > unless 5.0-R is *that much faster* than 5.1-C. Post your kernel configs, or better yet, do a diff -u between the 5.0-R and the 5.1-C kernel configs. I bet dime to dollar you've got some debugging options enabled in the 5.1-C config. At the very least you haven't remove the debugging options from your malloc options. > I too have had a periodic problem with auto negotiation on Cisco > gear. I wish it was something simple like that here but it'd appear > that we're all synced up just fine. If you weren't sync'ed, you'd be getting about 10-20Kbps, not 87Mbps: your network gear isn't the issue, neither is DNS. -RELEASE has all debugging opts turned off, where as -CURRENT has them enabled. 4.* should be faster than 5.x for the time being, but as locking work continues, that gap should get smaller and smaller. -sc -- Sean Chittenden
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030911203514.GB74421>