Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:41:47 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND9 performance issues with SMP Message-ID: <y7vr7ldo69w.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <41C8BD1C.9090507@freebsd.org> References: <y7vwtvbmcrf.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <41C8BD1C.9090507@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:17:32 -0700, >>>>> Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> said: >> C. (for comparison) SuSE Linux (kernel 2.6.4, glibc 2.3.3) on the >> same box I used with experiment B >> >> threads BIND BIND++ >> 0 16117 >> 1 13707 17835 >> 2 16493 26946 >> 3 16478 32688 >> 4 14517 36090 >> >> While "pure BIND9" does not provide better performance with multiple >> CPUs either (and the optimizations in BIND++ are equally effective), >> the penalty with multiple threads is much smaller. I guess this is >> because Linux handles lock contentions much better than FreeBSD. >> > Do you have any comparisons to NetBSD or Solaris? Comparing to Linux > often results in comparing apples to oranges since there is > long-standing suspicion that Linux cuts corners where BSD does not. I've never done this type of test for NetBSD, since as far as I know NetBSD is not very SMP-aware (does this change in, e.g., NetBSD 2.0?). I've checked Solaris with similar tests, but I could only use a 2-processor sparc box. So, the results would not be very informative. FWIW, however, Solaris performed quite well with 2 processors. > Also, would you be able to re-run your tests using the THR thread > package? If I have another chance and test environments (I've lost the access to the test environments). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vr7ldo69w.wl>