From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 19:26:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A381B16A47E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:26:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwoolworth@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E08D43D67 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:26:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dwoolworth@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so1246968nfc for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=a2iQ0lFm2yWpSMMumN+Xj2LPw/VZwd9TWGGFS6qc9V0RM7yHYKdeNYP/Jka7opUKqzOU0HZq8VBVA6ClnVcxKaA2CV0TR1XdmG/WW6JuCkP+41GCk9eCWB+JEcyRHbUH3iDM7oasN2ppuSJ4l9ulqcjiyyZuqlMhqhzakl3T2X4= Received: by 10.49.93.13 with SMTP id v13mr5659270nfl; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.218.10 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <10fd06c60610121226y1e985564sbf8f2c6f84050228@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:26:19 -0500 From: "Derrick T. Woolworth" To: performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061012141930.41607.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <452E6054.8000604@centtech.com> Cc: Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:26:32 -0000 What a load... Here's a report... I have over 800 nodes installed in the field with FreeBSD 6.0 running as routers on silly little 1.3Ghz machines with 256MB of RAM. They run Apache/PHP/wSSL enabled, MySQL, dual-firewall with custom NetGraph module for Wireless MAC authentication. The company does over 180k a month in subscribers in the trucking industry in the US. The company has TWO network administrators who do very little during the day because the machines NEVER die. If they do, 99.9% of the time its hardware related. I built those systems in 2 months and they support remote rollout of a new operating system snapshot and they're preparing to rollout 7.0 when its stable. I no longer work there - only on occassion when they need assistance. Internally, I have 50 FreeBSD machines hosting over 600 complex web applications that my firm has built over the last 11 years using ONLY FreeBSD. Currently, they're all running FreeBSD 6.0 and later and "I" am the only network administrator in the company. If I was running anything else (which, we do run some Windows machines and they are the bain of my existence...) I would be too busy to do anything else. One of our largest systems has redundant load-balancers with three presentation boxes serving web pages out of memory - again, Apache w/PHP. These boxes build 200+ page 300dpi PDF documents for high school year books (including LOTS of 300+ dpi student and faculty images). They're supported by two mid-sized database machines, one read, one write (replicated, obviously) that do 200 to 500 queries per second at busy times during the day. Graphic data is all stored on SATA data storage systems, which after a bit of tweaking scale really well using NFS and Jumbo Frames - bound multiple NICs with the ng_fec module (thank you thank you guys)... Oh yeah, forgot to mention, once the system was setup, I haven't had to touch it - and even "braver" yet, these 2 load balancers, 3 presentation machines, 2 database machines and 2 1.4TB data storage boxes ALL run 7.0-CURRENT. Call me stupid, brave, whatever - but 7.0 , with the snapshot release I got is the fastest I have ever seen FreeBSD run, regardless of the fact the hardware is fast. I've tuned each machine using the online docs and a bit of help from PHK and Juli Malette... Interesting stat - from 10 other machines, I used ab to toss some hits at these boxes. Like: ab -n 1000 -c 20 The page hit was a test page that did reading and writing, several times to the database and read an image, used MagickWand to resample them and write the image back. The average time for the test took 4 to 5 seconds. I achieved around ~220 requests per second per test machine with 75 to 100ms per request. I don't want to feed the trolls either, but sometimes performance is achieved because you take the time to read and don't just install the OS "as-is" and expect it to work well on all hardware. When configured properly, in my opinion, FreeBSD kicks ass. D On 10/12/06, Eric Anderson wrote: > On 10/12/06 09:19, Danial Thom wrote: > > > > --- Alexander Leidinger > > wrote: > > > >> Quoting Dan Lukes (from Thu, 12 > >> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200): > >> > >> [moved from security@ to performance@] > >> > >>> The main problem is - 6.x is still not > >> competitive replacement for > >>> 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported > >> hardware - I speaked about > >>> performance in some situation and believe in > >> it's stability. > >> > >> You can't be sure that a committer has the > >> resources to setup an > >> environment where he is able to reproduce your > >> performance problems. > >> You on the other hand have hands-on experience > >> with the performance > >> problem. If you are able to setup a -current > >> system (because there are > >> changes which may affect performance already, > >> and it is the place > >> where the nuw stuff will be developt) which > >> exposes the bad behavior, > >> you could make yourself familiar with the pmc > >> framework > >> (http://wiki.freebsd.org/PmcTools, I'm sure > >> jkoshy@ will help if you > >> have questions) and point out the bottlenecks > >> on current@ and/or > >> performance@ (something similar happened for > >> MySQL, and now we have a > >> webpage in the wiki about it). Without such > >> reports, we can't handle > >> the issue. > >> > >> Further discussion about this should happen in > >> performance@ or current@... > >> > >> Bye, > >> Alexander. > >> > > > > Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team > > to come out of its world of delusion and come to > > terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD > > knows: In how ever many years of development, > > there is still no good reason to use anything > > other than FreeBSD 4.x except that 4.x doesn't > > support a lot of newer harder. There is no > > performance advantage in real world applications > > with multiple processors, and the performance is > > far worse with 1 processor. > > > > The right thing to do is to port the SATA support > > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both. > > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and > > FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from > > ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it, > > PLEASE, because it is the case and saying > > otherwise won't change it. > > > > My prediction is that a year from now we'll all > > be using DragonflyBSD and you guys will be > > looking for a new bunch of beta-test guinea pigs. > > My prediction is that a year from now single processor systems are going > to look like 386's to the rest of the world using multi-proc with > FreeBSD-6 or 7, meanwhile enjoying the increased filesystem performance > gained from non-giant-locked UFS2, the GEOM tools, etc, etc.. > > Anyway, people should stop complaining, and start offering up hardware, > net connections, and man power to support a cvs repo/packages/etc for > the 4.x tree if they want it. That's what people do, and that's the > beauty of open source. > > > Eric > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology > Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Derrick T. Woolworth, President ServeTheWeb, LLC. http://www.ServeTheWeb.com