Re: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box?

From: Sean Chittenden (sean_at_chittenden.org)
Date: 09/11/03

  • Next message: John Straiton: "RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box?" 
    Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:35:14 -0700
To: John Straiton <jsmailing@clickcom.com>

    > > Hrmmm.... I wonder if 5.0-R is faster than 4-STABLE?
    >
    > The question is really, is it faster than 4.8-S AND 5.1-C. That was
    > the reason we updated the production machine to 5.1 from 4.8... To
    > determine if that was a factor at all. I was hoping that 5.X was
    > just *that much faster* but it would appear that it's not the case
    > unless 5.0-R is *that much faster* than 5.1-C.

    Post your kernel configs, or better yet, do a diff -u between the
    5.0-R and the 5.1-C kernel configs. I bet dime to dollar you've got
    some debugging options enabled in the 5.1-C config. At the very least
    you haven't remove the debugging options from your malloc options.

    > I too have had a periodic problem with auto negotiation on Cisco
    > gear. I wish it was something simple like that here but it'd appear
    > that we're all synced up just fine.

    If you weren't sync'ed, you'd be getting about 10-20Kbps, not 87Mbps:
    your network gear isn't the issue, neither is DNS. -RELEASE has all
    debugging opts turned off, where as -CURRENT has them enabled. 4.*
    should be faster than 5.x for the time being, but as locking work
    continues, that gap should get smaller and smaller.

    -sc 

    -- 
Sean Chittenden
_______________________________________________
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"
  • Next message: John Straiton: "RE: Performance Problems.. Server hardware smoked by $500 box?"
    • Quantcast