Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:50:10 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible evidence of performance regression for 8.1-S (vs. 7.1) Message-ID: <4CBF8032.8000609@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20101020174854.GZ21226@albert.catwhisker.org> References: <20101020174854.GZ21226@albert.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/20/10 10:48 AM, David Wolfskill wrote: > [...] > The 8.x reference machine was created by cloning the 7.x reference > machine (the OS "drive" is a RAID 1; I broke the mirror and physically > booted the (soon-to-be) 8.x machine from a single drive from the > 7.x mirror, changed the hostname& IP address, then allowed the > RAID firmware on the controller to "re-silver" that mirror). Once > that finished, I performed a fairly standard source upgrade to 8.0-R > on one slice, cloned that slice, booted from the cloned slice, and > did a source upgrade to more recent points along the stable/8 branch, > culminating with the above-cited 8.1-STABLE #5 r214029. At this > point, I've left the installed ports alone, except that the 8.x > slices have the compat7x port installed. > [...] try the 7.x machine but running the 8.x kernel.. i.e. change nothing, but boot the new kernel. > FWIW, the workload is fairly CPU intensive during most of the run; the > I/O done during (most of) the test appears to be very light, and the > memory used is fairly modest. In each of the test machines, I have > turned off HTT (HyperThreading Technology); hw.ncpu reports 8 for each. try with HTT on for modern hardware.. > Thanks! > > Peace, > david
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CBF8032.8000609>