From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 8 18:05:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4B016A4BF for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9690E43FE5 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:05:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h89150f01276; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:05:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:05:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson To: Terry Lambert In-Reply-To: <3F5848A2.74AAF606@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20030908210307.B12093-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: "Jim C. Nasby" Subject: Re: Best disk caching method (and PGSQL performance) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:05:10 -0000 On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > Also, has anyone played with the other fsync options? > > > > FreeBSD only supports the default fsync option. > > And as the comments point out, it lacks the introspection to > know dirty pages from clean ones, so all pages that are in > core and associated with the object are written, not just > the dirty ones. Avoid this, if possible. This is not accurate at all. Please see vfs_subr.c's vop_stdfsync(). We walk the dirty block head and flush those buffers that are dirty. > > It would be nice if there were an fcntl that would F_SYNCRANGE > or something similar, so the applicaion could hint the range it > wanted written to the kernel. > > -- Terry > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 5 06:23:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0BB16A4BF; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sizone.org (mortar.sizone.org [65.126.154.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AB843FF7; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:23:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca) Received: by sizone.org (Postfix, from userid 66) id 37AD32FFC7; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by canoe.velocet.net (Postfix, from userid 101) id 08B7D1D1C4A; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:23:06 -0400 (EDT) From: David Gilbert MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16216.36410.889440.499438@canoe.velocet.net> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:23:06 -0400 To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: <64330.1062619621@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <3F5647F3.5080502@he.iki.fi> <64330.1062619621@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:28:42 -0700 cc: Petri Helenius cc: Max Clark cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Geoff Buckingham cc: Dan Nelson cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 20TB Storage System X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:23:10 -0000 >>>>> "Poul-Henning" == Poul-Henning Kamp writes: Poul-Henning> In message <3F5647F3.5080502@he.iki.fi>, Petri Helenius Poul-Henning> writes: >> fsck problem should be gone with less inodes and less blocks since >> if I read the code correctly, memory is consumed according to used >> inodes and blocks so having like 20000 inodes and 64k blocks should >> allow you to build 5-20T filesystem and actually fsck them. Poul-Henning> I am not sure I would advocate 64k blocks yet. Poul-Henning> I tend to stick with 32k block, 4k fragment myself. Poul-Henning> This is a problem which is in the cross-hairs for 6.x That reminds me... has anyone thought of designing the system to have more than 8 frags per block? Increasingly, for large file performance, we're pushing up the block size dramatically. This is with the assumption that large disks will contain large files. ... but I havn't seem that, myself. Large arrays that we run tend to have multiple system images (for diskless or semi-diskless operation) and many more thousands of users ... all with their usual complement of small files. It strikes me that driving the block size up (as far as 1M) and having a 256 (or so) fragments might become appropriate. We probably also need to address disks with larger block sizes soon, but that's another issue alltogether. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 10 01:36:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A2A16A4BF for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FC043F93 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:36:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfl2g.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.212.80] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19x0Su-0003jz-00; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:36:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3F5EE252.123E5C9@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:35:30 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Roberson References: <20030908210307.B12093-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4dbb293d35a7d14d3d097f7a716944ca5a8438e0f32a48e08350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: "Jim C. Nasby" Subject: Re: Best disk caching method (and PGSQL performance) X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:36:43 -0000 Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > And as the comments point out, it lacks the introspection to > > know dirty pages from clean ones, so all pages that are in > > core and associated with the object are written, not just > > the dirty ones. Avoid this, if possible. > > This is not accurate at all. Please see vfs_subr.c's vop_stdfsync(). We > walk the dirty block head and flush those buffers that are dirty. Sorry, you're absolutely right! It's msync which sucks because it ignores the start address and length arguments, not fsync. The reason fsync sucks is that it lacks start location and end arguments. So you end up writing out everything with both of them, even when all you want is to write one page of a 1G file. -- Terry From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 06:47:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C785716A4BF; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89E343FE5; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:47:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id 3A72923E334; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:47:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: , Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:42:41 -0400 Message-ID: <008501c3786a$95aaefa0$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Importance: Normal Subject: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:47:48 -0000 Greets! I'm pretty confused right now with trying to determine the nature of a performance problem I'm having on one of my servers. The server is a webserver with a separate db/file server sitting behind it. The issue is that in pulling up websites from the machine, my silly POS development box has nearly double performance although one would think it shouldn't. Serving pages from the production machine over NFS or even the db/file server via local filesystem is slower than pages from the development machine over NFS. By that I mean that if you view the page on the development machine over the LAN, it appears instantly...Do that on the production machines and 1-2 seconds pass as you watch images flow in... With zero load. Now granted the development machine has the most Mhz, but we're talking *visible* differences in speed between a 1.5GhzAMD & ~1Ghz Intel Server Class machines. And to top it all off, with the miniscule amount of ram in the AMD box, it's paging around 50MB (with only a few K free of physical ram) by the time apache finshes spawning during the boot. By all rights, to me, this thing should be no better than equivalent to the production machines. They are all plugged in to the same Cisco 3524 switch, and I've tried mulitple cables (even swapping between the fast & slow machines to try to hurt the fast one) and the IOS reports no errors on the interfaces, all at 100/FullDuplex. I can reproduce the problem on any # of viewing machines at will. Please tell me that I shouldn't toss these multi-thousand dollar servers and just buy a bunch of these silly do-it-yourself'ers..(*kidding*, but you get the idea) The hardware involved: Production Machine: (Dell PowerEdge 1U server 1G/UWSCSI) ======================================== FreeBSD 5.1-Current (Was 4.8 Release, upgraded in attempt to find problem) CPU: Intel Pentium III (927.11-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" real memory = 1342111744 (1279 MB) fxp0: da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-3 device da0: 160.000MB/s transfers (80.000MHz, offset 63, 16bit) da0: 17366MB (35566478 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 2213C) DB/File Server: (Dell PowerEdge 2U Server 768MB/RAID5) ======================================= FreeBSD 4.8 Stable CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) III CPU family 1266MHz (1263.45-MHz 686-class CPU) real memory = 805240832 (786368K bytes) fxp0: aac0: mem 0xf0000000-0xf7ffffff irq 2 at device 2.1 on pci2 aac0: i960RX 100MHz, 118MB cache memory, optional battery present aacd0: on aac0 aacd0: 69425MB (142182912 sectors) Development Machine: (Whitebox machine) ======================================== FreeBSD 5.0-Release CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1800+ (1544.67-MHz 686-class CPU) real memory = 234815488 (223 MB) rl0: ad0: 39205MB [79656/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA133 Ideas? Could the CPU alone be doing that much towards the difference? RAM (DDRvsECC)? I don't have any other AMD machines to use in a control group so I can't persue that route. I have benchmarks attached below... Thanks for any ideas, John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101 The benchmarks that show the most difference are these...my notes in ()'s: ======================================================================== ==== #bonnie -s 1 (run on NFS share) -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU PROD 1 6364 25.0 9121 4.9 166 0.3 2906 13.5 94108 28.6 398.8 3.3 -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU DEV 1 11246 65.3 11259 6.4 6733 4.3 11009 41.9 292571 95.3 5612.2 28.9 #ubench PROD: (ECC SDRAM) Ubench CPU: 25713 Ubench MEM: 22707 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 24210 DEV: (DDR) Ubench CPU: 66048 Ubench MEM: 57434 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 61741 #netperf (TO DB MACHINE FROM NOTED MACHINE) TCP STREAM TEST to DB FROM DEV Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 57344 32768 32768 10.01 92.74 TCP STREAM TEST to DB FROM PROD Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 57344 32768 32768 10.00 87.61 From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 07:04:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F82416A4BF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from otter3.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5CF43FA3 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:04:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from centtech.com (neutrino.centtech.com [204.177.173.28]) by otter3.centtech.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h8BE3x6T006083; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:03:59 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <3F6080CC.30909@centtech.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:03:56 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Straiton References: <008501c3786a$95aaefa0$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> In-Reply-To: <008501c3786a$95aaefa0$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:04:01 -0000 John Straiton wrote: [..SNIP..] >Please tell me that I shouldn't toss these multi-thousand dollar servers >and just buy a bunch of these silly do-it-yourself'ers..(*kidding*, but >you get the idea) > Don't toss the hardware. I don't think it has anything to do with your hardware. I think it's either an apache conf issue, or possibly DNS issues. I'd like to see the following for each machine: /etc/resolv.conf /etc/hosts /etc/host.conf (or /etc/nsswitch.conf) /usr/local/etc/apache/httpd.conf Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology All generalizations are false, including this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 09:43:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6662116A4BF; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out003.verizon.net (out003pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.103]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349B843FD7; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:43:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([68.237.14.199]) by out003.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030911164326.FEGY29617.out003.verizon.net@mac.com>; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:43:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3F60A613.3020405@mac.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:42:59 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <008501c3786a$95aaefa0$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> <20030911090023.40d3f497.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: <20030911090023.40d3f497.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out003.verizon.net from [68.237.14.199] at Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:43:26 -0500 cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:43:28 -0000 Chris Pressey wrote: [ ... ] > - Is it possible the server has too much RAM? > > I don't remember where I heard that that can degrade performance, but > I'm pretty sure it was on one of the freebsd lists a couple of months > ago. One of the early Pentium Pro/P2 chipsets, either the 430VX or the 430FX?, was unable to perform L2 caching of main memory above 64MB or some such, but aside from this sort of hardware limitation, more memory is going to be better for FreeBSD. [ This isn't true of all operating systems, but Unix systems like FreeBSD use some variant of LRU page replacement algorithm for VM, probably in conjunction with a global page-fault frequency algorithm to help size process working sets, which does not suffer from Belady's anomaly. At one point, Windows used FIFO with working set as the VM paging algorithm, which does not maintain the stack-based invariant of resident pages and thus sometimes making more memory available under Windows results in worse performance due to software issues. The classic MacOS used to have a similarly brain-dead VM system, which is why Mac users have generally resisted the notion of enabling or using VM, although they seem to be coping with Mach and Darwin.... ] -- -Chuck From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 09:50:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF5F16A4BF; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF45643FE5; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id 0EA3B57545; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:50:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: "'Chris Pressey'" Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:45:16 -0400 Message-ID: <00ac01c37884$1a5d6390$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030911090023.40d3f497.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:50:36 -0000 > > I'm pretty confused right now with trying to determine the > nature of a > > performance problem I'm having on one of my servers. The > server is a > > webserver with a separate db/file server sitting behind it. > The issue > > is that in pulling up websites from the machine, my silly POS > > development box has nearly double performance although one > would think > > it shouldn't. [...] > > Disclaimer: these are random, uninformed guesses... > > - Is it possible the server has too much RAM? I'll look into this. > - Are you using the same db server as the backend for your > development box? Thanks for your suggestions, unfortunately- yes, both scenerios in production (webserver + db server or db server acting as both) are slower than the development box serving off of the db server. There are no local services other than apache on the development machine. John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101 From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 09:50:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366EE16A4C0 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2A143FA3 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id AAD6F574FE; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:50:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: "'Eric Anderson'" Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:45:16 -0400 Message-ID: <00ab01c37884$17459c40$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3F6080CC.30909@centtech.com> cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:50:36 -0000 > Don't toss the hardware. I don't think it has anything to do > with your > hardware. I think it's either an apache conf issue, or possibly DNS > issues. I'd like to see the following for each machine: Thanks for looking into this. I'll put the requested information below: John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101 > /etc/resolv.conf # Production Web domain clickcom.com nameserver 209.198.22.5 nameserver 216.189.17.4 # Production DB search clickcom.com nameserver 209.198.22.5 nameserver 216.189.17.4 # Development Web search clickcom.com nameserver 209.198.22.5 nameserver 216.189.17.4 > /etc/hosts # Production Web 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain # Production DB 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain 209.198.22.23 depot depot.clickcom.com 209.198.22.12 chasm chasm.clickcom.com # Development Web 127.0.0.1 chasm chasm.clickcom.com 209.198.22.12 chasm chasm.clickcom.com 209.198.22.21 chasm chasm.clickcom.com > /etc/host.conf (or /etc/nsswitch.conf) # Production Web (5.1-C) [host.conf] hosts Bind [nsswitch.conf] hosts: files dns # Production DB (4.8-S) [host.conf] hosts Bind [nsswitch.conf does not exist] # Development Web (5.0-R) [host.conf does not exist] [nsswitch.conf does not exist] > /usr/local/etc/apache/httpd.conf They all used to use the similiar configuration files with the exception of the IP's placed in the VirtualHost entries until we upgraded the Production Web machine to use apache2 and the Min/Max/Start servers entries. I'll put the relavent stuff below...Keep in mind that things were slow on the production machine before we upgraded it to apache2, which is still slow. [/usr/local/etc/apache/httpd.conf] (DEV Server) KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 15 MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 StartServers 5 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 Listen 80 Listen 443 Listen 8000 BindAddress *:80 BindAddress *:443 BindAddress *:8000 Port 80 (DB Server + Former Production Web when it was apache1.3) KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 15 MinSpareServers 20 MaxSpareServers 30 StartServers 15 MaxClients 250 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 Listen 80 Listen 8000 Listen 443 BindAddress *:80 BindAddress *:443 BindAddress *:8000 (Production WEB now that it's using apache2. Since we're new to apache2, it's gonna be certainly hokie) KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 15 StartServers 20 MinSpareServers 10 MaxSpareServers 40 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 StartServers 20 MaxClients 150 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 NumServers 5 StartThreads 5 MinSpareThreads 5 MaxSpareThreads 10 MaxThreadsPerChild 20 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 Listen 80 Listen 8000 Listen 443 From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 10:24:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC3116A4BF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9D543FEA for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id 727F5553D2; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:24:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: "'Damian Gerow'" Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:19:00 -0400 Message-ID: <00b201c37888$cec24770$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030911170345.GN769@sentex.net> cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:24:19 -0000 > Thus spake John Straiton (jsmailing@clickcom.com) [11/09/03 12:45]: > > Thanks for your suggestions, unfortunately- yes, both scenerios in > > production (webserver + db server or db server acting as both) are > > slower than the development box serving off of the db server. There > > are no local services other than apache on the development machine. > > What about the server machine? I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in the beginning..it's funny what stuff you forget actually is important to tell people. The production webserver and the development webserver (when this exercise started) were *exactly* the same in apache configuration (except IP's) and general setup (except hardware differences and the production running 4.8-S while the development ran 5.0-R). The important hardware differences were shown in my original email. > - filesystem usage Since they were configured the same, and both out of "Live" production when we tested, these would be the same > - disk size *and* speed (i.e. 5400 vs 7200 RPM, ATA100 vs. ATA33...) The production used a UW SCSI Seagate Cheetah (10K RPM), while the development used a Maxtor UDMA133 (7200 RPM) > - memory speed (PC100 vs. PC133, DDR200 vs. DDR400...) Production 512MB PC133 ECC Registered vs Development 256MB 266Mhz DDR > - network troubleshooting (10Mb vs. 100Mb, distance between machines, 100Mbit, Full Duplex, less than a meter difference between all 3 machines and the switch they all share (Cisco 3524XL) Together they are below 10 meters total cabling. > distance between servers, different cards being used...) The servers use Intel integrated cards, vs we have a $7 no-name realtek card in the development machine. > - Software tuning / configuration At one point (when we noticed the problem), the only difference between the machines was that the development server had less apache servers (Min/Max/Start) configured because even with just 5 starting, it would begin to swap (cause it ran out of physical ram) after booting. > If you're doing heavy disk I/O, then watch IO on the system (iostat). When out of production, there's no reason either machine would have any disk IO other than normal system logs. > Look at network errors (netstat -i), duplex mismatches (link > lights on switch vs. what ifconfig tells you), and network > load (i.e. production is on a 10Mb hub, development is on a > 100Mb switch). Etc., etc., etc. They are all connected to the same switch, and the Cisco IOS reports zero errors on any of the 3 interfaces. Even when the production machine was live, it would have less than 3Mb/sec load on a 100Mbit/FullDuplex network. I know this kinda sounds like I'm being contradictory, but believe me...I'm not. This is why I'm so stumped, because I've looked at everything mentioned here but as of yet, haven't been able to justify to myself that just the difference in DDR vs SDRAM and 500Mhz is what I am to blame for it being visibly faster while serving up web pages.. I'd buy that if I were comparing a difference of 50fps in Quake3 but we're talking about *apache* here.. Heh.. I'd hate to think I need to buy a server with 500 more MHz just to test that theory. Perhaps there's something like slo-mo for FreeBSD that I can use to knock that AMD down to around 1Ghz without having to do it via dipswitches on the motherboard... Or well..maybe I'll just crack the case and turn it down (hopefully it'll run if I do that) Thanks for the suggestions, John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101 From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 10:55:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B6B16A4BF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.inode.at (smtp-03.inode.at [62.99.194.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25B443FF5 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mad-ml@madness.at) Received: from [81.223.23.235] (port=47680 helo=rhea.madness.at) by smtp.inode.at with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.10) id 19xVfI-00062F-00 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:55:33 +0200 Received: from madness.at ([192.168.17.1]) by rhea.madness.at (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8B3M6In018285; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:22:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3F60B2B4.7040709@madness.at> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:36:52 +0200 From: Alexander Marx User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030902 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Straiton References: <00b201c37888$cec24770$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> In-Reply-To: <00b201c37888$cec24770$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:55:43 -0000 John Straiton wrote: >>Look at network errors (netstat -i), duplex mismatches (link >>lights on switch vs. what ifconfig tells you), and network >>load (i.e. production is on a 10Mb hub, development is on a >>100Mb switch). Etc., etc., etc. > > > They are all connected to the same switch, and the Cisco IOS reports > zero errors on any of the 3 interfaces. Even when the production machine > was live, it would have less than 3Mb/sec load on a 100Mbit/FullDuplex > network. > thats great and all .. but does the server also report zero interface errors? (output of netstat -in) ? we had lots of problems with cisco switches and half/full-duplex missmatches ... even though the switches thought everything was fine. just a guess, alex. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 11:15:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC65216A4BF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from daemon.uop.edu (daemon.uop.edu [138.9.200.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EE943F93 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:15:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wfroning@angui.sh) Received: from daemon (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daemon.uop.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h8BIFjQB073853 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wfroning@angui.sh) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:15:44 -0700 From: Will Froning To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20030911111544.10ce1679.wfroning@angui.sh> In-Reply-To: <3F60B2B4.7040709@madness.at> References: <00b201c37888$cec24770$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> <3F60B2B4.7040709@madness.at> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:15:48 -0000 On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:36:52 +0200 Alexander Marx wrote: > John Straiton wrote: > >>Look at network errors (netstat -i), duplex mismatches (link > >>lights on switch vs. what ifconfig tells you), and network > >>load (i.e. production is on a 10Mb hub, development is on a > >>100Mb switch). Etc., etc., etc. > > > > > > They are all connected to the same switch, and the Cisco IOS reports > > zero errors on any of the 3 interfaces. Even when the production > > machine was live, it would have less than 3Mb/sec load on a > > 100Mbit/FullDuplex network. > > > thats great and all .. but does the server also report zero > interface errors? (output of netstat -in) ? > > we had lots of problems with cisco switches and half/full-duplex > missmatches ... even though the switches thought everything was fine. I'll agree w/ the above statement. We force full-duplex on both the switch and via rc.conf for all of our FreeBSD boxes. Will -- Will Froning Unix Sys. Admin., Lt. Pimp wfroning@angui.sh From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 11:44:00 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC9A16A4BF; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rhombus.znep.com (sense-sea-MegaSub-1-507.oz.net [216.39.145.253]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7E043FE1; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcs@znep.com) Received: by rhombus.znep.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7BE3F1A291; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rhombus.znep.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF021AAA6; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:43:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Slemko To: John Straiton In-Reply-To: <008501c3786a$95aaefa0$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> Message-ID: References: <008501c3786a$95aaefa0$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:44:01 -0000 On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, John Straiton wrote: > Greets! > > I'm pretty confused right now with trying to determine the nature of a > performance problem I'm having on one of my servers. The server is a > webserver with a separate db/file server sitting behind it. The issue is > that in pulling up websites from the machine, my silly POS development > box has nearly double performance although one would think it shouldn't. you need to quantify the performance differences starting with replicating what you see, and work down from there. Do the differences in the numbers you posted mean anything? No idea. I wouldn't expect them to make any difference for a single user hitting the server, but it is possible they are related to some problem somewhere. The easiest way to tell, however, is to start with the problem you do see (ie. things are slow loading) and work down through the software stack from there. The first step would be to try to quantify the performance difference in serving the actual web pages. Find a single page that you think is slow on the production system and that can be accessed without having to be part of a session, and quantify the performance difference for that page. Remember you don't care about high load, just a single user request. You could use apachebench ("ab", comes with apache... something like "ab -c 1 -n 20 http://server/path/to/page") or any simple command line tool that you can time (eg. repeatedly run "time GET http://server/path/to/page"). Do this from as near as possible to the box you are running the web browser that sees the slowness loading. Until you can reproduce and quantify a performance difference at this level, don't worry about digging deeper. Once you can, keep taking one step closer. Try requesting a page that doesn't hit the database. Try setting things up so NFS isn't being used. Try making the request from the same machine the web server is running on. etc. Your goal here is to eliminate as many components as possible while still being able to reproduce the high level problem. So, for example, if you can reproduce it on a page that doesn't hit the database... you can eliminate that from further consideration. Unless your application is extremely heavyweight and demanding on hardware, or there is some bug in one of the drivers or configuration, none of the hardware differences would normally have any effect on the symptoms you say you are seeing. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 13:13:29 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B2A16A4BF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.clickcom.com (mx2.clickcom.com [209.198.22.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95B343FD7 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:13:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jsmailing@clickcom.com) Received: from aesop (calefaction.clickcom.com [209.198.22.19]) by mx1.clickcom.com (email) with ESMTP id 0192A59EC3; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:13:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Straiton" To: "'Damian Gerow'" , Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:08:19 -0400 Message-ID: <002101c378a0$75308380$1916c60a@win2k.clickcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 In-Reply-To: <20030911175227.GQ769@sentex.net> Importance: Normal cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:13:29 -0000 > Hrmmm.... I wonder if 5.0-R is faster than 4-STABLE? The question is really, is it faster than 4.8-S AND 5.1-C. That was the reason we updated the production machine to 5.1 from 4.8... To determine if that was a factor at all. I was hoping that 5.X was just *that much faster* but it would appear that it's not the case unless 5.0-R is *that much faster* than 5.1-C. > > Well. If anything, production should be kicking > development's heiney in this one. You'd think so, at least on the reads. I understand that RAID5 isn't the fastest thing on the block writing, but 99.5% of the traffic to the machine should be requesting pages, not doing disk/database writes other than standard apache logging. > > > - memory speed (PC100 vs. PC133, DDR200 vs. DDR400...) > > Production 512MB PC133 ECC Registered vs Development > 256MB 266Mhz > > DDR > Is the DDR registered at 266MHz? It could be that it's > 532MHz... I don't remember which way the DDR speed rating > goes, I've only just set up my first DDR server yesterday > (didn't trust it just yet). I /think/ it's 266MHz in both > directions, but you'd probably know better than I. I really have no clue. I'm not a hardware guy when it comes to stuff I haven't seen in a server, and I haven't seen anything but various speeds of ECC in the machines I tinker with. > Any network errors on either cards? Have you tried doing > some netperf stuff, to see how the machines handle data transfers? Yeah, netperf scores were in the original email. The development machine topped around 96Mbit/sec and the production one topped like at 87Mbit/sec I think it was. The more interesting numbers were how the development machine nearly *doubled* the production one in NFS scores. > > The servers use Intel integrated cards, vs we have a $7 no-name > > realtek card in the development machine. I made a mistake. The development machine indeed has a $7 realtek in it, but the configured interface is actually a 3c905TX 3Com card. Zero Ierrs, Zero Oerrs, Zero Collisions confirmed 100/full on development Zero Ierrs, Zero Oerrs, Zero Collisions confirmed 100/full on production Of course, the DB server serves files from local but it also has Zero Ierrs, Zero Oerrs, Zero Collisions confirmed 100/full I too have had a periodic problem with auto negotiation on Cisco gear. I wish it was something simple like that here but it'd appear that we're all synced up just fine. > Well, the differences you've pointed out are the RAM and CPU > speed differences. What about other things -- CPU cache > size? What about looking up benchmark differences for the > AMD vs. Intel, and see what they show (you'll probably only > find similar ratings, but if the AMD beats the Intel at > comparitive speeds (1.5GHz), you can bet it'll beat the Intel > at a lower speed. Just make sure you're looking at IO > benchmarks, and not gaming benchmarks.) Well I can't say I know offhand what cache size the Dell PowerEdges use but I'd imagine it's at least equivalent to the AMD chip. I'd say I'd look down that route if it weren't for the next question.. > What about FSB speed -- what does the AMD motherboard run at? > The Intel motherboard? Now I think I just might buy (and agree) that all the difference in the world would be there if I have faster ram, faster cpu AND a faster bus speed. I don't know how to determine that from the DMESG tho' (it didn't seem blantantly obvious to me) so I guess I'd have to try to dig through dell's new site (the site formerly known as the best hardware vendor site when you could put in a ID # and it'd tell you everything exactly for *your* machine instead of the family of machines) to find out what it's running. I could find the MB manual for the development one to look that up if necessary. Would anyone like to concurr that the FSB (et al) could be enough of a difference to explain all this? If so, I'm upgrading my 100Mhz FSB box at home like tomorrow... This development machine just screams in comparison. I've attached the DMESGs from all 3 machines below: John Straiton jks@ clickcom.com Clickcom, Inc 704-365-9970x101 >> Production Web Copyright (c) 1992-2003 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #0: Mon Sep 8 12:35:03 EDT 2003 root@:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC Preloaded elf kernel "/boot/kernel/kernel" at 0xc072b000. Preloaded elf module "/boot/kernel/acpi.ko" at 0xc072b1f4. Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz Timecounter "TSC" frequency 927108262 Hz CPU: Intel Pentium III (927.11-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x68a Stepping = 10 Features=0x387fbff real memory = 1342111744 (1279 MB) avail memory = 1297186816 (1237 MB) Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled npx0: on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface acpi0: on motherboard acpi0: power button is handled as a fixed feature programming model. Timecounter "ACPI-safe" frequency 3579545 Hz pcibios: BIOS version 2.10 Using $PIR table, 6 entries at 0xc00fc730 acpi_timer0: <32-bit timer at 3.579545MHz> port 0x808-0x80b on acpi0 acpi_cpu0: on acpi0 acpi_cpu1: on acpi0 pcib0: on acpi0 pci0: on pcib0 pcib0: slot 1 INTA is routed to irq 11 pcib0: slot 2 INTA is routed to irq 10 fxp0: port 0xecc0-0xecff mem 0xfe100000-0xfe1fffff,0xfe2f f000-0xfe2fffff irq 11 at device 1.0 on pci0 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:06:5b:3a:48:d5 miibus0: on fxp0 inphy0: on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto fxp1: port 0xec80-0xecbf mem 0xfe000000-0xfe0fffff,0xfe2f e000-0xfe2fefff irq 10 at device 2.0 on pci0 fxp1: Ethernet address 00:06:5b:3a:48:d6 miibus1: on fxp1 inphy1: on miibus1 inphy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto pci0: at device 3.0 (no driver attached) isab0: port 0x580-0x58f at device 15.0 on pci0 isa0: on isab0 atapci0: port 0x8b0-0x8bf at device 15.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 pcib1: on acpi0 pci1: on pcib1 pcib2: on acpi0 pci2: on pcib2 pcib2: slot 5 INTA is routed to irq 5 pcib2: slot 5 INTB is routed to irq 3 ahc0: port 0xdc00-0xdcff mem 0xfeaff000-0xfeafffff irq 5 at device 5 .0 on pci2 aic7899: Ultra160 Wide Channel A, SCSI Id=7, 32/253 SCBs ahc1: port 0xd800-0xd8ff mem 0xfeafe000-0xfeafefff irq 3 at device 5 .1 on pci2 aic7899: Ultra160 Wide Channel B, SCSI Id=7, 32/253 SCBs fdc0: port 0x3f7,0x3f0-0x3f5 irq 6 drq 2 on acpi0 fdc0: FIFO enabled, 8 bytes threshold fd0: <1440-KB 3.5" drive> on fdc0 drive 0 atkbdc0: port 0x64,0x60 irq 1 on acpi0 atkbd0: flags 0x1 irq 1 on atkbdc0 kbd0 at atkbd0 sio0 port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 on acpi0 sio0: type 16550A orm0: