From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 15:24:20 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA6B16A41B; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674F613C467; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B265247523; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:26:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:24:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Alexey Popov , kris@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <4741A3A8.4010803@chistydom.ru> Message-ID: <20071119152214.J80667@fledge.watson.org> References: <4741905E.8050300@chistydom.ru> <20071119140019.V80667@fledge.watson.org> <4741A3A8.4010803@chistydom.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:24:20 -0000 On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Popov wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of cores, >> and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I see you're >> trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 beta instead? >> Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the 7.0 kernel rather >> than "options SCHED_4BSD". > I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: Did you see no change in throughput, or no change in reported CPU use? We should probably take this thread to performance@ and get Kris involved. He may be interested in trying to reproduce your workload in our testbed so we can perform measurements of our own, as well as getting you to provide profiling information. One of the things we'd most like to have are nice potted benchmarks for real-world workloads, as that allows us to easily replay them, perform measurements, optimize, etc. Thanks, Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge > > last pid: 1063; load averages: 22.75, 13.76, 6.31 up 0+00:07:24 > 17:53:49 > 56 processes: 33 running, 23 sleeping > CPU states: 26.5% user, 0.0% nice, 68.1% system, 0.3% interrupt, 5.1% idle > Mem: 365M Active, 20M Inact, 102M Wired, 664K Cache, 46M Buf, 3419M Free > Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > 1019 www 1 101 0 101M 51244K RUN 6 0:37 26.86% httpd > 1040 www 1 -4 0 92476K 42956K RUN 1 0:36 26.76% httpd > 1004 www 1 -4 0 92476K 42864K RUN 4 0:38 25.98% httpd > 1018 www 1 101 0 91452K 41736K CPU3 3 0:37 25.68% httpd > 1000 www 1 101 0 92476K 42544K RUN 0 0:36 25.29% httpd > 1026 www 1 101 0 93500K 39900K CPU0 0 0:35 25.20% httpd > 1021 www 1 101 0 101M 49432K RUN 4 0:37 25.10% httpd > 1024 www 1 101 0 93500K 44416K RUN 5 0:37 25.10% httpd > 1020 www 1 101 0 94524K 43684K RUN 0 0:37 25.00% httpd > 1030 www 1 101 0 96576K 46004K RUN 3 0:36 25.00% httpd > 1031 www 1 101 0 101M 50956K RUN 3 0:37 24.66% httpd > 1025 www 1 101 0 94524K 43880K RUN 5 0:36 24.56% httpd > 1041 www 1 101 0 92476K 41792K RUN 2 0:36 24.56% httpd > 1022 www 1 101 0 101M 48932K RUN 5 0:36 24.27% httpd > > With best regards, > Alexey Popov >