From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 25 15:56:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BBF16A54E for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:56:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kreios@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9BC43D53 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:56:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kreios@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id o37so120554nzf for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:56:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=V0DWcN19nstuPxnRB5WEg+YXa3W3kigBdjay6mU4J67M8T05cqjhfQwGj/0FflSRVelWj3cXa2FQ3iLXriff8zWAJRvvILpeQViyaBtxGcini8GXdneWV2TYEJzMTAcee6lxzts2a1iREnGXJduX1W6obCrG1miyc9vmhK0SdLo= Received: by 10.65.54.9 with SMTP id g9mr1111641qbk; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.198? ( [71.113.235.243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f18sm2998784qba.2006.10.25.08.56.42; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20061025073511.GA90244@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <2de4f2a00610241959l7a96ed59je79fb3e978f2c3d9@mail.gmail.com> <20061025073511.GA90244@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:56:40 -0500 To: Divacky Roman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DNS Performance Numbers 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, 25 Oct 2006 15:56:44 -0000 On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Divacky Roman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:59:57PM -0500, kreios@gmail.com wrote: >> I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs >> with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share >> the >> first results. The first tests are for serving up static data. >> >> System: >> Supermicro PDSMi Motherboard >> 1G Memory >> Intel Pentium D CPU 3.40GHz >> Intel Gigibit NIC >> Bind 9.2.3 >> >> OS UP UP+P MP MP+P MP+TP MP+TT MP >> +TP+P >> MP+TT+P >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------- >> FreeBSD 4.11 28455 28370 28976 X X X >> X X >> FreeBSD 6.1 29074 34260 34635 35730 17846 38780 19776 >> 44188 >> FreeBSD Stable 30190 34707 33294 36651 18893 39374 19449 >> 44169 >> FreeBSD Current 30707 34029 32300 33689 15535 40554 13886 >> 42071 >> Ubuntu 6.06 X X X X X 37294 >> X X > > I see regression between -current and -stable. are you sure you > tested without > any debuging stuff? some performance speedups went in in 7-current I would attribute the regression to my testing setup. Running a couple of the tests again, I get numbers more in line with stable and release. In addition, I was probably not as careful with current as we will not be running it in production. I will see if I can find the time to run the numbers again and update the table. FYI, this first round of testing was to answer the question, does using threaded bind help performance on FreeBSD? In this minimal test case, it does. With the above info, I can now look into how a bind vs threaded bind performs in different test cases. This also gives me information on what I will gain/lose when deciding on various administration issues. > also - do you use the same config everywhere? -current GENERIC > doesnt have COMPAT_43 > for example which miht affect performance (additional locking) etc. I modified the kernel configuration files that where included with the distribution. For release, stable and current, I created four kernels; uni-processor, uni-processor with polling, multi-processor, multi- processor with polling. The OS was as default as possible. For this test, I didn't want to make many changes. -- Dave