From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 13 16:46:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376A81065670 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:46:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tt-list@simplenet.com) Received: from mx2.securemailscan.com (ob2.scaledsystems.com [209.132.1.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFAE8FC1F for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:46:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tt-list@simplenet.com) X-Warning: RFC compliance checks disabled due to whitelist X-Warning: Maximum message size check skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: System filters skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: Domain filters skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: User filters skipped due to whitelist X-Warning: Anti-Spam check skipped due to whitelist X-Whitelist: 2147483549 X-Envelope-From: tt-list@simplenet.com X-Envelope-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: From mta1.scaledsystems.com (209.132.1.201) by mx2.securemailscan.com (MAILFOUNDRY) id afXWymlXEd2wVQAw for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:46:45 -0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 6161 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2008 16:46:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (tt@simplenet.com@75.80.130.243) by mail.ssl.simplenet.com with ESMTPA; 13 Aug 2008 16:46:45 -0000 Message-ID: <48A30F8C.9020805@simplenet.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:45:00 -0700 From: Tim Traver User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein References: <48A1F379.2040805@simplenet.com> <20080813062731.GZ16977@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20080813062731.GZ16977@elvis.mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0 CPU and Memory Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:46:46 -0000 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Hey Tim, please try a later version of FreeBSD 7, there's been > many improvements in the malloc(3) code since 7.0 so these > results aren't very meaningful. > > Can you let us know what you see with 7-stable? > > thanks, > -Alfred > > > Alfred, Thanks for responding, but I was using the 7.0 stable source that I checked out about a week and a half ago...Is that not the current??? Tim. > * Tim Traver [080812 14:39] wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old >> versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before >> doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts that >> I would run would fare between the two versions, and the results are >> somewhat confusing... >> >> I tried to get as many ducks in a row before posting this, cause i don't >> want to waste any of the developers precious time, but I can't guarantee >> that my methods were not flawed. >> >> For simplicity, I used a port called ubench (the latest version 0.3, >> which I know is quite old) to get the following numbers : >> >> Since I was doing this on the same machine, with completely different >> builds (not simply a compile upgrade, but a full install), I figure it >> doesn't really matter what kind of machine it is, but just for grins, it >> is a Dual Opteron with 2GB of memory in it, compiled with the i386 confs. >> >> The 7.0 is compiled with the ULE scheduler... >> >> The following are averages of at least 5 runs : >> >> FreeBSD 5.4 - CPU 112,721 - MEM - 146,483 >> FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 177,339 - MEM - 95,920 >> >> Now, I really don't know exactly what the ubench program is doing, but I >> think the description says that it is doing random integer and floating >> point operations for the CPU tests, and random memory allocation and >> copying for the memory test. >> >> So, can we explain the difference???? It looks like the latest SMP code >> allows it to process more operations, but what happened to the memory >> operations???? >> >> Just to get an idea of what this was going to do to my scripts, I tried >> some benchmarks for those as well. >> >> I tried to run a PHP script using php 4.4.7 and got the following results : >> >> Using "time php index.php" to get the real time : >> >> FreeBSD 5.4 - 0.290 seconds >> FreeBSD 7.0 - 0.335 seconds >> >> So, do the slower memory operations cause that difference in the real >> time it takes to run that script??? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" >> > >