Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:23:39 -0200 (BRST) From: "Michel Santos" <michel@lucenet.com.br> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> Subject: Re: diskio low read performance Message-ID: <64716.200.152.83.36.1168716219.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070113190447.GA65571@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <64656.200.152.83.36.1168651673.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <45A87878.1050505@paradise.net.nz> <63758.200.152.83.36.1168689227.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113164232.GA34348@xor.obsecurity.org> <64857.200.152.83.36.1168710081.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113180036.GA64359@xor.obsecurity.org> <60639.200.152.83.36.1168714686.squirrel@webmail.matik.com.br> <20070113190447.GA65571@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway disse na ultima mensagem: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:58:06PM -0200, Michel Santos wrote: > >> I have two server, the main server is a Supermicro Dualcore Dual Opteron >> and the backup is a Athlon64 X2, both with 4GB >> >> The disks are the same, only the onboard SCSI is Adaptec and the other >> is >> LSI. Funny is that I have no difference regarding the disk read >> performance wether I use the Opteron machine or the other >> >> dmesg Opteron >> http://suporte.lucenet.com.br/ms/dmesg.sm >> >> dmesg X2 >> http://suporte.lucenet.com.br/ms/dmesg.x2 >> >> kernel config >> http://suporte.lucenet.com.br/ms/kernel62 > > options SCHED_ULE # ULE scheduler > > From the NOTES file from where you copied this: > > # SCHED_ULE is a new scheduler that has been designed for SMP and has some > # advantages for UP as well. It is intended to replace the 4BSD scheduler > # over time. NOTE: SCHED_ULE is currently considered experimental and is > # not recommended for production use at this time. > > When investigating problems with your system, your very first step > should be to revert the use of code marked "experimental" and "not > recommended for production use" ;-) > I am running both (on at a time of course :) ), now for six month or so, ULE is giving me better overall performance, either with or w/o polling. I mean network performance. I have net.isr.enable=1 and net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1, this way I do get the same network performance I had on the 4.11. I mean I have no problem here. But also I checked the ULE/BSD against my particular problem and there is no difference at all. I get no acceptable disk read performance when comparing what I had with 4.11, wether with ULE or with 4BSD Michel computador é como nem cavalo e mulher mais que montam neles, pior que ficam ... **************************************************** Datacenter Matik http://datacenter.matik.com.br E-Mail e Data Hosting Service para Profissionais. ****************************************************
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?64716.200.152.83.36.1168716219.squirrel>