Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 08:28:43 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: DAve <dave.list@pixelhammer.com>, 'User Questions' <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load Message-ID: <48254EAB.3030103@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080510090439.U58698@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <482473B7.7070707@pixelhammer.com> <48248AC9.5060507@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20080509202941.J53368@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <4824CEE7.6070605@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20080510090439.U58698@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig079B4F27F292354CF7CF80DA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> It depends very much on the application load you have to support and=20
>> the sort
>> of hardware you have available. For the sort of multicore chips that =
>> are all the
>> rage nowadays, I'd go with 7.0 every time, even running single threade=
d
>> applications.
>=20
> did you actually made a comparision with 6.*? not with "paper=20
> benchmarks" but just run 100 different things and check how responsive =
> machine is.
My experience is of dealing with servers where each machine typically has=
a small number of important applications -- frequently only /one/ applica=
tion
-- which it has to run as efficiently as possible, and for a large numbe=
r of
end-users. The most telling example was a MySQL server which we original=
ly
configured with 6.3 -- but it just collapsed under the full load when we =
made
it the back end for a popular web forums site. Exactly the same hardware=
is in
use now running 7.0 and not only is that DB server cruising along quite h=
appily,
but we've been able to add a bunch more web servers at the front of the s=
ite.
That's the most remarkable improvement I've seen, but it is not at all
untypical.
I can't speak to the model of needing to run hundreds of different
applications on the same server -- about the closest thing I have to that=
is my personal laptop (but only dozens of apps, rather than hundreds), an=
d
other than being vaguely aware that it seems to be working adequately, I'=
ve
never even tried to compare before and after performance.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig079B4F27F292354CF7CF80DA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkglTrEACgkQ8Mjk52CukIydnACdFJSglZSWv72E5rRz1bfBBULc
sNgAnjPWqT7et+0djPw68vg9Rt4ezq6D
=mnqe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig079B4F27F292354CF7CF80DA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48254EAB.3030103>