From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 13:15:05 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB2E106566B for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:15:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from schulra@earlham.edu) Received: from chkenon.earlham.edu (chkenon.earlham.edu [159.28.1.87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CD28FC12 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:15:05 +0000 (UTC) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1324473300-037b9f16aa170100001-3XdwJY Received: from tdream.lly.earlham.edu (tdream.lly.earlham.edu [159.28.7.241]) by chkenon.earlham.edu with ESMTP id W1o9txvtChYcnEbL; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:15:00 -0500 (EST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: schulra@earlham.edu X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 159.28.7.241 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:16:21 -0500 (EST) From: Randy Schultz X-X-Sender: schulra@tdream.lly.earlham.edu To: Matthew Tippett In-Reply-To: <4EF11B57.7090007@phoronix.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server Message-ID: References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EF1121F.9010209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EF11B57.7090007@phoronix.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Barracuda-Connect: tdream.lly.earlham.edu[159.28.7.241] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1324473300 X-Barracuda-URL: http://159.28.1.87:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at earlham.edu X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.89 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.89 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1000.0 tests=SARE_ADLTSUB4 X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.83704 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.89 SARE_ADLTSUB4 Apparent spam seems to contain porn subject Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server 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: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:15:05 -0000 On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Matthew Tippett spaketh thusly: -}There are still possible issues with those benchmarks. The Xeon has known -}problems scaling from 6 to 12 cores (well enabling the hyperthreading), so you -}may find that some platforms are penalized in performance if HT is turned on. -}See the scaling that Phoronix has done in -} -}http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112166-AR-1112153AR03 -} -}Most systems are good with scaling on real cores, the hyperthreading (and for -}that matter the Bulldozer thread affinity) can really break performance. -}Different platforms have different behaviours. Benchmarking is a mucky -}business.. This brings up a good point. While I don't have any hard #'s, I suspect the vast majority of SA's do not have/spend much time tweaking this and tuning that. Order the box, drop the OS on it, install needed bits and go. Saying "oh for app X you need to tune these sysctl's", while it may be entirely true, kinda throws things out the window. It seems that once one starts down that slippery slope, it merely becomes a game of how much time to you have to "tune 1 more thing". ;> I think Phoronix has the right idea of just grabbing a stock box and not looking into what needs to be tweaked for a specific app. -- Randy (schulra@earlham.edu) 765.983.1283 <*> nosce te ipsum