Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:55:28 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Dual-Xeon vs Dual-PIII ... Dual-PIII actually better? Message-ID: <20050209214335.E94338@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've had a discussion going on talking about performance issues of one of my servers, and right now the only thing that I've got to "work with" is the difference in CPUs ... I had started it off thinking it was a software RAID issue, but looking at my Dual-PIII, its not exhibiting near as much load, and the only difference between the two configs is drive sizes (Dual-PIII has 36G Seagate Drives, the Dual-Xeon has 73G ones) and the CPUs ... even the operating system is within days of each other, so either I hit a bad 'cvsup day' for the Dual-Xeon, or I'm missing something as far as Dual-Xeon's is concerned ... vmstat 5 on both machines shows >50% idle CPUs on the Dual-PIII, while the Dual-Xeon shows >90% system busy ... if it were vinum related, I'd expect that they would both be about as busy on the system side ... First question ... is there some way of getting 'finer' data on system usage? What is using up 99% of the %CPU, when it happens? syscalls/sec don't seem to 'jump' much when that happens, hovering around the same on both servers (between 2k and 4k / sec ... I'm going to be doing an OS upgrade on that machine over the next couple of days, to see if maybe I did just get a 'bad kernel', but if someone can suggest something that I can monitor/look at to determine where the sys cpu is being sucked up, that would be appreciated ... thanks .... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050209214335.E94338>