Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:55:32 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: "Eugene M. Zheganin" <emz@norma.perm.ru> Cc: "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: about that DFBSD performance test Message-ID: <20170308105532.GR15630@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <b91a6e40-9956-1ad9-ac59-41a281846147@norma.perm.ru> References: <b91a6e40-9956-1ad9-ac59-41a281846147@norma.perm.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:00:34AM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi. > > Some have probably seen this already - > http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2017-March/313254.html > > So, could anyone explain why FreeBSD was owned that much. Test is split > into two parts, one is nginx part, and the other is the IPv4 forwarding three: UFS part. And multiple simulations access to same file/block can cause page lock congestion. > part. I understand that nginx ownage was due to SO_REUSEPORT feature, > which we do formally have, but in DFBSD and Linux it does provide a > kernel socket multiplexor, which eliminates locking, and ours does not. > I have only found traces of discussion that DFBSD implementation is too > hackish. Well, hackish or not, but it's 4 times faster, as it turns out. > The IPv4 forwarding loss is pure defeat though. > > Please not that although they use HEAD it these tests, they also mention > that this is the GENERIC-NODEBUG kernel which means this isn't related > to the WITNESS stuff. > > Please also don't consider this trolling, I'm a big FreeBSD fan through > the years, so I'm asking because I'm kind of concerned.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170308105532.GR15630>