5.x concerns

From: Chris (chrcoluk_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/06/05

  • Next message: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: 5.x concerns"
    Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:01:49 +0000
    To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
    
    

    Hi

    I switched over half a dozen or so servers to 5.x since october last
    year expecting the same stability and performance I have had from
    freebsd 4.x, after running it for 2 or 3 months I have ran into some
    problems/concerns, listed below. This is not intended for anything
    other then feedback and andswers to my questions I am well aware of
    the hard work put into freebsd and will continue to love the os.

    1 - Speed, performance, All but 2 of the servers are normal Single
    processor machines and I think mainstream is still single processor,
    whilst there are smp machines and 64bit machines cropping up they are
    still a minority, what I have noticed first hand and read on the web
    is that 5.3 is sluggish behind 4.10 on single cpu machines, whilst on
    64bit and smp machines it whizzes along. Was it a wise decision to
    only concentrate on smp performance as what seems to be the case and
    is there going to be single processor improvements to come?

    2 - stability, about 75% of my servers are fully stable on freebsd
    5.3, on 4.x I have had no stability issues. We have 1 server just
    continously locking up, another one that has tcp stack problems (its
    to do with the network side of things as locally it responds but goes
    offline), and has to be rebooted every few weeks.

    3 - robustness, 5.3 seems to not handle ddos attacks so well, I
    remember on a 4.x machine I could easily take a full 100mbit udp flood
    and have the server respond albeit maybe with some lag but it stayed
    functional, 5.x seems to crumble under a lot less pressure on the same
    machine. This could be with pf been loaded on top of ipfw adding
    extra overhead I dont know.

    4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
    worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
    libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0 so 3rd party apps could
    adjust, now we have a situation where most stuff that worked in 4.x
    worked well in 5.1 and 5.2.1 but then broke in 5.3 so effectively 5.3
    was liek a new major version over 5.2.1.

    I doubt I will be rolling back my server's as I know things will get
    better over time but new server's we build I will expect to be
    deploying 4.10 on them. I just feel with the ULE scheduler stuff and
    the IO performance issues I have heard about along with the issues I
    have come across that 5.3 got rushed towards the end, and instead of
    keeping 5.x as CURRENT they wanted 5.3 to be a production release so
    disabled some things such as the ULE scheduler to force it to be
    stable and its turned out a bit messy. Has anyone else got comments
    on my 4 main points?

    Chris
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"


  • Next message: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: 5.x concerns"