From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov 30 12:17:01 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6042C16A417
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:01 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from angel.ticketswitch.com (angel.ticketswitch.com
	[IPv6:2002:57e0:1d4e::1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F06413C467
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:01 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from smaug.rattatosk ([10.50.50.2])
	by angel.ticketswitch.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1Iy4nk-0006p2-Fk; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:00 +0000
Received: from dilbert.rattatosk ([10.50.50.6] helo=dilbert.ticketswitch.com)
	by smaug.rattatosk with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1Iy4nk-000HRr-CT; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:00 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ticketswitch.com with local (Exim 4.68
	(FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1Iy4nk-00024U-C3; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:00 +0000
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, killing@multiplay.co.uk, max@love2party.net
In-Reply-To: <00e201c83349$b94ab7d0$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk>
Message-Id: <E1Iy4nk-00024U-C3@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:00 +0000
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:01 -0000

> Check vfs.ufs.dirhash_mem is not close to vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem if it is
> and only most used boxes this seems to be the case increase maxmem.

Its nowhere near - and the dirhash_maxmem and dirhash_minsize are the same
on both boxes.

> Seems this could either do with an auto tune option or a larger max by
> default in today's day and age.

quite possibly - I will keep an eye on them and up them if necessary
anyway, so thanks for the info. but this isn't whats causing the difference
in performance here.

-pete.