From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 13 06:45:54 2008 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 9FBB31065673 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:45:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847778FC15 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:45:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id F2CAF1A4D83; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:27:31 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Tim Traver Message-ID: <20080813062731.GZ16977@elvis.mu.org> References: <48A1F379.2040805@simplenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48A1F379.2040805@simplenet.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0 CPU and Memory Performance 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, 13 Aug 2008 06:45:54 -0000 Hey Tim, please try a later version of FreeBSD 7, there's been many improvements in the malloc(3) code since 7.0 so these results aren't very meaningful. Can you let us know what you see with 7-stable? thanks, -Alfred * Tim Traver [080812 14:39] wrote: > Hi All, > > I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old > versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before > doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts that > I would run would fare between the two versions, and the results are > somewhat confusing... > > I tried to get as many ducks in a row before posting this, cause i don't > want to waste any of the developers precious time, but I can't guarantee > that my methods were not flawed. > > For simplicity, I used a port called ubench (the latest version 0.3, > which I know is quite old) to get the following numbers : > > Since I was doing this on the same machine, with completely different > builds (not simply a compile upgrade, but a full install), I figure it > doesn't really matter what kind of machine it is, but just for grins, it > is a Dual Opteron with 2GB of memory in it, compiled with the i386 confs. > > The 7.0 is compiled with the ULE scheduler... > > The following are averages of at least 5 runs : > > FreeBSD 5.4 - CPU 112,721 - MEM - 146,483 > FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 177,339 - MEM - 95,920 > > Now, I really don't know exactly what the ubench program is doing, but I > think the description says that it is doing random integer and floating > point operations for the CPU tests, and random memory allocation and > copying for the memory test. > > So, can we explain the difference???? It looks like the latest SMP code > allows it to process more operations, but what happened to the memory > operations???? > > Just to get an idea of what this was going to do to my scripts, I tried > some benchmarks for those as well. > > I tried to run a PHP script using php 4.4.7 and got the following results : > > Using "time php index.php" to get the real time : > > FreeBSD 5.4 - 0.290 seconds > FreeBSD 7.0 - 0.335 seconds > > So, do the slower memory operations cause that difference in the real > time it takes to run that script??? > > Thanks, > > Tim. > > _______________________________________________ > 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" -- - Alfred Perlstein