From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 11 07:07:01 2009 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 E94AB1065672; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:07:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-performance@mawer.org) Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out1.iinet.net.au (outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out1.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.108]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A1D8FC16; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:07:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-performance@mawer.org) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwBAJ4AkknLzq3r/2dsb2JhbAAI00yEGgY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,190,1233500400"; d="scan'208";a="452568463" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.24.1.1]) ([203.206.173.235]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out1.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2009 15:38:07 +0900 Message-ID: <49927151.2030100@mawer.org> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:33:53 +1100 From: Antony Mawer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <499165F3.6050803@sebster.com> <49918DA6.4020608@sebster.com> <49918E0A.1060500@sebster.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 disk performance issue on ESXi 3.5 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, 11 Feb 2009 07:07:02 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > Sebastiaan van Erk wrote: >> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote: >>> (However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2 >>> unixbench outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench >>> does a cat /proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the >>> output under linux to the "procinfo" file.) > ... benchmark results snipped ... > > The results are ... interesting. It seems that FreeBSD simply dies in > any test having a high context switch rate. Hmmm, this looks familiar. > Either I or a collegue of mine had a similar situation some time ago, > with the same discrepancy in disk speeds and the same difference in > context switches. Unfortunately, there was no solution. How would one go about gathering data on such a scenario to help improve this? We were planning a project involving VMware deployments with FreeBSD 7.1 systems in the near future, but if performance is that bad it is likely to be a show stopper. Where do we start looking and who should we be talking to? -- Antony