From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 16 14:45:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BE016A4E0 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:45:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE1B43D45 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:45:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3092D290C6D; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:45:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08930-02; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:45:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-224-179-167.eastlink.ca [24.224.179.167]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53651290C38; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:45:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1027) id DEB395C721; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:45:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2365C70F; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:45:29 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:45:29 -0300 (ADT) From: User Freebsd To: "Tamouh H." In-Reply-To: <20060714024743.BEC4B43D49@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20060716113433.X1799@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060714024743.BEC4B43D49@mx1.FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: 'Jerry McAllister' , danial_thom@yahoo.com, 'FreeBSD Questions' , "'Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC'" Subject: RE: SMP Performance (Was: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail ... ) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:45:26 -0000 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Tamouh H. wrote: > I have to put my two cents here: > > 1) I agree with few posters that FreeBSD performance have been lacking > behind. I've reported few issues on performance list and many did. We > offered few pre-production servers for performance testing, but the > answer we keep getting is: > > a. It is either your hardware sucks > b. your benchmark application sucks 'k, here's to all the performance folks ... how should someone test performance? a. actually doesn't apply, as long as your performance testing is being done apples to apples as far as hardware is concerned ... if I create a dual-boot system, with FreeBSD 4.x and FreeBSD 6.x on a machine, and run *accepted performance / benchmark applications*, and compare those results, one would hope that 6.x performance fater/better then 4.x ... > 2) Regarding SMP, few posts talked about disabling hyper-thread and SMP > because it causes a performance degradation. On production hosting > server, the experience was otherwise though. Without HT and SMP, the > server would sky rocket in resource consumption. This has been tested on > FBSD 5.4 i386 Personally, I've never found HT to be a performance boost, and I run 9 'production hosting servers' ... I can actually feel the difference between turning it on/off ... not sure what you mean by 'sky rocket in resource consumption', but all my Dual Xeon servers have HTT disabled, and I'm not noticing anything odd ... if you could elaborate on how you are seeing this, I can check on my machine to see if I see similar ... > 3) I'm also frustrated like many with the rapid advancement in release > jumps. We barely started 5.x to conclude it does not live up to > expectations, so now 6.x is suppoused to be the good version, yet 7.x is > going to come out soon and probably in less than a year 6.x will be > considered inadequate. As to this one ... 5.x built up a very very bad reputation for itself, so basically 'skipping' that one makes sense ... I know I wouldn't trust a new version of 5.x coming out ... 6.x, other then the file system deadlocks which I'm trying to provide suitable DDB traces for, I've not noticed anything wrong with 6.x ... The jump from 6.x to 7.x does seem a bit ... quick ... but, then again, 7.x hasn't been released yet, and I think its safe to say that we all know that in software development, 'release estimates' are almost never accurate ... The problem, as I see it, is that until the OS gets used in "real life production environments", some of the more obscure bugs don't get found ... on a simple production server, not doing much, I doubt anyone would ever see the file system deadlocks ... but, there are several of us that are running it in production with heavy loads that do ... but it takes a good load on the machine to trigger it, and I doubt any of the developers have that to work with, and/or can easily simulate the 'randomness' of a production environment ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664