Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:02:47 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966? Message-ID: <l36c1u$rur$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20131007172804.GA7641@albert.catwhisker.org> References: <20131007172804.GA7641@albert.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --tan4eEgcA0ARhxdF6Q22T9nn4d6xgi4j1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/10/2013 19:28, David Wolfskill wrote:> At work, we have a bunch of machines that developers use to build some > software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxxxxxx= > (with a few local patches, which have since been committed to stable/8)= , > and the software is built within a 32-bit jail. >=20 > The hardware includes 2 packages of 6 physical cores each @3.47GHz > (Intel X5690); SMT is enabled (so the scheduler sees hw.ncpu =3D=3D > 24). The memory on the machines was recently increased from 6GB > to 96GB. >=20 > I am trying to set up a replacement host environment on my test machine= ; > the current environment there is FreeBSD/amd64 8.4-STABLE @r255966; thi= s > environment achieves a couple of objectives: >=20 > * It has no local patches. > * The known problems (e.g., with mfiutil failing to report battery > status accurately) are believed to be addressed appropriately. >=20 > However: when I do comparison software builds, the new environment is > taking about 12% longer to perform the same work (comparing against a > fair sample of the deployed machines): So, the test machine is exactly the same as the old machines? Does the hardware upgrade coincide with 8.4-STABLE upgrade? At a guess, you also might be hitting a problem with either NUMA (which would mean the difference you encountered is pretty much random, depending on how the memory from your processes was allocated), or a generic scheduler issue (IIRC, FreeBSD 9 series was found to be much more scalable for > 16 CPUs). Just a thought - you *could* set up an 8-STABLE jail in a 9-STABLE environment if you need the 8-STABLE libraries for your software. --tan4eEgcA0ARhxdF6Q22T9nn4d6xgi4j1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iKYEARECAGYFAlJWs4dfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDYxNDE4MkQ3ODMwNDAwMDJFRUIzNDhFNUZE MDhENTA2M0RGRjFEMkMACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSxBPACfY+scBQjkMxxPywFfWftacJeE G30AniKt8IrNTlfzGdFb19ANuKwrQIv6 =d/s4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tan4eEgcA0ARhxdF6Q22T9nn4d6xgi4j1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l36c1u$rur$1>