Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:02 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: swap performance under 6.1 Message-ID: <20060412174202.GA23969@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <p06230917c062e80c92b7@[128.113.24.47]> References: <1144795412.81364.18.camel@localhost> <20060412040326.GA94545@xor.obsecurity.org> <p06230917c062e80c92b7@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:36:43PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +0000, David E. Cross wrote: > >> I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap > >> performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not > >> done". > >> > > > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought > > > was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel > > > on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) >=20 > Note... >=20 > > > and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would > > > be eager to help track this down if someone could give me > > > some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would > > > seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. > > > >I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, > >but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and > >quantify any performance differences here - so far it's > >just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including > >mine) after upgrading from 4.x. >=20 > In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs > 6.1-@april-5th. Those are the two installations he has on > his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- > booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers > to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. Thanks, I did read his email :-) My point was that the problem was not believed to exist in that situation, so it's even more surprising and needs further investigation to be sure. Kris --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEPTvqWry0BWjoQKURAm5mAJ0eQ6w+WKzddLQzkhJAX0jlAnq5MgCfTzpI A9XiaSTsIzIYYXL9wFKqRmk= =tlpc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060412174202.GA23969>