Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:57:58 -0500
From:      jason henson <jason@ec.rr.com>
To:        em1897@aol.com
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
Message-ID:  <424256E6.5030301@ec.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C6FE1416E7B78A-B30-25840@mblk-r10.sysops.aol.com>
References:  <20050323225053.7793.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> <8C6FE1416E7B78A-B30-25840@mblk-r10.sysops.aol.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
em1897@aol.com wrote:

>  
>
>> 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. 
>>  
>
> You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was 
> unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion 
> you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they 
> ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp 
> based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its 
> own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to 
> leave it alone.  
> He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system 
> load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on 
> a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is 
> just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his 
> system or settings.  
> Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a 
> single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a 
> third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says 
> i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work 
> around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would 
> be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? 
>  
> So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I 
> couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that 
> would be wrong. _______________________________________________ 
>
> --------- Previous Message
>
> No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS 
> parameter for the em
> driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. 
> Instead of minimizing the load,
> they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is 
> not how you tune
> performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 
> 695Kb/s with 60% load,
> which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so 
> they were hitting the
> wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was 
> just a stupid test in
> general.


I would say 60% load.  Now I completely understand what you were saying.

>
> I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing. 
> I take an i386 disk
> and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4 
> required differences,
> and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your 
> buildworld runs faster,
> but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so 
> you likely have a
> slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a 
> bunch of swell
> guys swearing that one thing is faster than another.
>
> I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But 
> its not going to make
> things any better.

Ahh! More flame bait!  I just didn't like you platitudinal and 
unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux 
and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to 
discover latter.  It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were 
just not saying anything worth his time.  But atleast now we can get 
some where to help him and the amd64 port.  I also had the idea that 
Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD 
was bad and left us to duke it out.

> _______________________________________________
> 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"
>
So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with 
the amd64 build?  Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav 
access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs?  Look 
at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load?  aybe report it back?  I 
wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to 
service.  Either there is a problem.  Ofcourse some hardware info would 
be nice, chipset and cpu?  Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use 
netperf too? 

I like Nick's followup.  I would guese Boris may have a problem with 
proper hardware support.  I can't really said it is bad hardware if 
speeds are the same, just high load(right?).  Maybe the driver he is 
using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?

I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright. 

Check this out:
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice

Inparticular:
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?424256E6.5030301>