Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:33:49 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Peculiar(?) slowdown with -CURRENT as of 21 March Message-ID: <XFMail.20020322133349.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200203221827.g2MIRrl66041@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22-Mar-2002 David Wolfskill wrote: > On a 0 - 10 "weirdness" scale, this ranks about a 4, perhaps, so it's > hardly earth-shattering. But it's odd enough that I thought that a > small reality check might be in order, in case the effect(s) in question > were not expected. (And yes, I understand that a degree of uncertainty > with respect to -CURRENT's performance is to be expected, even at the > best of times. This is not a complaint.) > > Briefly, my SMP "build machine" built today's -CURRENT (while running > yesterday's -- hence the Subject:) much more slowly than my laptop did. > > To illustrate, here are the timestamp messages from the respective > kernel builds: > >>>> Kernel build for FREEBEAST started on Fri Mar 22 07:59:58 PST 2002 >>>> Kernel build for FREEBEAST completed on Fri Mar 22 08:24:19 PST 2002 > >>>> Kernel build for LAPTOP_30W started on Fri Mar 22 08:09:25 PST 2002 >>>> Kernel build for LAPTOP_30W completed on Fri Mar 22 08:26:31 PST 2002 > > So that's not a huge difference in and of itself -- 24:21 vs. 17:06 -- > but what really stands out is that the laptop actually finished the whole > morning's processing before the build machine did. And that's somewhat > remarkable, given that: > > * build machine got a bit of a head start (though it did have a little > bit more work to do in one respect). > > * build machine is 2x866 MHz P3s; laptop is a 750 MHz P3. > > * laptop disk is 4500 RPM; build machine's disk is probably 5400 -- > certainly no slower than that. > > I don't really want to spam the entire list with the details of the > processes used, so I cobbled up a page at > http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/FreeBSD/speed.html that should > have enough excruciating details for anyone sufficiently interested. I saw some similar weirdness in my test machines last night where a dual processor DS20 (Alpha 21264 500x2) beat out a PII Xeon 450x4. Normally the quad xeon beats the DS20. The quad xeon was using -j16 but was about 74% idle. The DS20 had used -j8. I didn't get a chacne to run top to see how it was doing during hte world since I didn't notice the weirdness until last night after the DS20 had finsihed but the quad xeon was still chugging along. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020322133349.jhb>