Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:31:19 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Scaling and performance issues with FreeBSD 9 (& 10) on 4 socket systems Message-ID: <20130613183119.GA40198@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <op.wyl7oryz34t2sn@markf.office.supranet.net> References: <20130612225849.GA2858@dragon.NUXI.org> <op.wyl7oryz34t2sn@markf.office.supranet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:32:41AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > The CPUs between those machines are quite different. I wouldn't say they are "quite" different. It's not like comparing Netburst to Core2, or I believe even original Core2 to Sandybridge. I may be wrong, I've not followed Intel cores from a micro-architecture POV too closely. If anything it's typical for a newer micro-architecture to perform the same at a lower clock speed. > I'm sure we're > looking at different cache sizes, different behavior for the > hyperthreading, Is there something specific you are thinking of? The Xeon E5-4650 has 20M "smart" cache organized as ??? The Xeon X5690 has 12M "smart" cache organized as ??? I know the AMD cache hierarchy for L1 I&D, L2, L3; but I'm not seeing this as clearly spelled out for these Xeons. > etc. I'm sure others would be greatly interested in you > providing the same benchmark results for a recent snapshot of HEAD as well. 10-CURRENT results were in http://people.freebsd.org/~obrien/jbm/vanitygen/vanity-perf-graph.png as "fbsd10". Or are you suggesting something else? thanks for your thoughts! -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130613183119.GA40198>