Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:00:35 -0500 From: em1897@aol.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre Message-ID: <8C6FDE958CAFD0B-90C-29197@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <20050323165203.38506.qmail@web90201.mail.scd.yahoo.com> References: <20050323165203.38506.qmail@web90201.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The answer, Boris, is that the "team" has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon "determined" that 10,000 ints/second was "optimal". Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. : > Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 01:19 schrieb Boris > Spirialitious: > > -- Emanuel Strobl <emanuel.strobl@gmx.net> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris > > > > > Spirialitious: > > > > I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em > > > > card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs > traffic > > > > and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is > > > > about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system > run > > > > with 85% load. How could be so slow? What > tuning > > > > extra is needed for amd64 kernels? > > > > > > 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured > duplex/negotiation > > > mode. > > > But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many > > > performance improvements were > > > achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE > > > branch (BETA1 is a relese of > > > FreeBSD 5-STABLE) > > > > I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled > stream > > Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with > em and 5.3. There are > tuning methods but they won't give the big kick. > > Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your > employment you'll see > tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy > nor can I confirm that for > amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if > this box isn't > productive yet, which it isn't if I understood > correctly. I am running 5.4-Pre now. Its the same. Everyone always say try new version, but it always the same. i compare em to em, only difference is amd64 vs i386. So amd64 O/S is this much slower than i386? So why anyone use? Is like nobody know what is going on with this OS. Before, people tell me Opteron on i386 no good. But now that I test, its much better than amd64. Why is there always excuse with FreeBSD 5? Always try next version. Always same slow result? Boris __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8C6FDE958CAFD0B-90C-29197>