Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:26:27 +0200 From: Krassimir Slavchev <krassi@bulinfo.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Alexey Popov <lol@chistydom.ru> Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD Message-ID: <47554773.2080806@bulinfo.net> In-Reply-To: <20071204121329.N87930@fledge.watson.org> References: <20071201213732.GA16638@cannabis.dataforce.net> <1497741406.20071201230441@rulez.sk> <20071202174540.GA29572@cannabis.dataforce.net> <200712020844.49718.linimon@FreeBSD.org> <4753C9E4.1060200@chistydom.ru> <20071203114037.G79674@fledge.watson.org> <47542372.3040303@chistydom.ru> <20071203163353.J79674@fledge.watson.org> <47551C1C.3000903@chistydom.ru> <47553170.90409@bulinfo.net> <20071204121329.N87930@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Watson wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Krassimir Slavchev wrote: > >>>> Evidence in-hand seems to suggest that 8 core systems work very well >>>> for most users, and reflect a significant performance increase with >>>> 7.0 over previous FreeBSD releases. >>> >>> I disagree with that. Heavily loaded Apache, MySQL, Postgres does not >>> work well. >> >> There is another report for such problems: >> >> http://blog.insidesystems.net/articles/2007/04/09/what-did-i-do-wrong > > A casual reading suggests that this article is about FreeBSD 6.2, and > not FreeBSD 7.0. Am I misreading? No, But these tests can be performed on FreeBSD 7.0 4/8 core systems. > > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge > >> >>> >>>>>> The right path forwawrd at this point is to diagnosis the problems >>>>>> and work on fixing them in 8-CURRENT, and assuming they are not >>>>>> highly disruptive, MFC them for FreeBSD 7.1. >>>>> >>>>> I believe at least the bug with lockmgr contention should be fixed >>>>> before release. >>>> Could you point me at the specific proposed change in question? I >>>> don't think I've seen it come across re@ as a potential merge >>>> request. Changing locking primitives close to a release is, FYI, a >>>> risky business, as while it may improve performance in specific cases, >>>> we may not have a lot of information about more general cases. We >>>> also risk opening up previously nascent race conditions in lock >>>> consumers. >>> Kris sent me proof of concept patch that helped much against high >>> lockmgr contention. After applying this patch 8-core server become >>> faster that 4-core. But, again, it's still slower than Linux. >>> >>> Here's the patch: >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-November/038449.html >>> >>> >>> Here's Kris saying that it helps: >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-November/038672.html >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure it will help to MySQL and Prostgres, but symptoms are >>> mostly identical. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> Alexey Popov >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) >> >> iD8DBQFHVTFwxJBWvpalMpkRAjX0AJ4otHVzAzVqVRKJxUlD4Y9ENdD5PACgq/eZ >> ptzb/VC56JFh/Iiepy+bK/s= >> =wpdw >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHVUdzxJBWvpalMpkRAsXNAJ9HinGlM19ePrSdXiLqkKRgCWUHpgCfVRaw yi7Tz4lN6dcrtFVdn9601yw= =BLSg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47554773.2080806>