From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 12 19:06:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654D316A41F for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:06:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from a50.ironport.com (a50.ironport.com [63.251.108.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BAA43D5C for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:06:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from unknown (HELO [10.251.23.146]) ([10.251.23.146]) by a50.ironport.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2006 11:06:09 -0800 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true Message-ID: <43C6A8A0.3080704@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:06:08 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050727 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Landgren References: <43C62F16.8030401@landgren.net> In-Reply-To: <43C62F16.8030401@landgren.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmarks of 5.4 and 6.0 on a 6-CPU host (HP Netserver LT 6000r) X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:06:13 -0000 David Landgren wrote: > List, > > A while back, I mentioned that I was going to bring a six-processor > box (an HP Netserver LT 6000r) from 5.x to 6.0-STABLE, and someone > asked for some before and after benchmarks. With the recent spate of > advisories, I figured it was time to recompile the world, which gave > me the chance to perform the other side of the benchmark, to see how > 6.0 performs. > > The benchmark was of course to buildworld and buildkernel. > > Back in november I was running a reasonably recent 5.4-STABLE. I first > ran the build with -j12 to give the system a workout, and then > afterwards without, for the real thing. Each time I moved /usr/obj to > /usr/obj-old, in order to have a fresh /usr/obj directory tree created > each time. (In fact, I didn't have much choice in the matter: cruft > from 5.4 builds or something or other cause the very first make to > fail. Zapping /usr/obj fixed that). > > In all cases the machine was very lightly loaded. > > 5.4-STABLE compilation times > ---------------------------- > > # Build world, 12 processes: > time env -i make -j12 -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildworld > real 43m28.093s > user 152m18.214s > sys 41m6.976s > > # Build word, normal: > time env -i make -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildworld > real 157m46.084s > user 143m20.122s > sys 17m53.311s > > # Build kernel, 12 processes: > time env -i make -j12 -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildkernel KERNCONF=PROFANE > real 18m30.613s > user 30m46.221s > sys 6m0.858s > > # Build kernel, normal: > time env -i make -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildkernel KERNCONF=PROFANE > real 32m51.860s > user 29m53.228s > sys 3m30.556s > > 6.0-STABLE compilation times > ---------------------------- > > # Build world, 12 processes: > time env -i make -j12 -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildworld > real 43m40.423s > user 155m43.345s > sys 30m15.898s > > (Of note, system time has declined by 25%) > > # Build word, normal: > time env -i make -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildworld > real 160m28.020s > user 146m26.300s > sys 16m4.736s > > (No difference) > > # Build kernel, 12 processes: > time env -i make -j12 -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildkernel KERNCONF=PROFANE > real 18m12.984s > user 31m31.825s > sys 4m26.606s > > (again, a clear reduction of 25%) > > # Build kernel, normal: > time env -i make -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildkernel KERNCONF=PROFANE > real 33m30.404s > user 30m42.769s > sys 2m52.994s > > (no difference) > > So my naive reading of the above is yes, the kernel 6.0 is quite a bit > more efficient on multiprocessor systems, the more the machine is > loaded, the more the difference. but the real times didn't change.. (in fact got a bit worse in some cases) which I guess is something that could be looked at.. did you build in a chroot so athat the same tools were being used both times :-) > > David Landgren