Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:36:43 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: swap performance under 6.1 Message-ID: <p06230917c062e80c92b7@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20060412040326.GA94545@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1144795412.81364.18.camel@localhost> <20060412040326.GA94545@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +0000, David E. Cross wrote: >> I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap >> performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not >> done". >> > > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought > > was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel > > on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) Note... > > and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would > > be eager to help track this down if someone could give me > > some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would > > seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. > >I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, >but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and >quantify any performance differences here - so far it's >just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including >mine) after upgrading from 4.x. In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs 6.1-@april-5th. Those are the two installations he has on his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06230917c062e80c92b7>