Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- From: "Claus Guttesen" <kometen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:41:47 +0100
Just as a followup to this - I soent some time going through all
the suggestions and advice that people gave me regarding this problem.
It turns out that the newer servers shipped by HP have different cache
settings to the older ones on their RAID controllers, plus I get very
different results from my benchmarks depending on how long the machines
have been booted for and what activity has occurred on them (probably due to
things ending up in cache).
What settings are there on the cache? I have a DL 380 G5 with 2 x
dual-core woodcrest and 512 MB BB cache running as a db-server
(postgresql) and two DL 360 G5 with with 2 x 4-core and 256 MB BB
cache running as web-servers.
Upshot - if the machines are configured identically, and an identical install
is made and an identical test doen then we get identical performance as
expected.
Part of the reason for posting this though is that a lot of people have bbeen
worrying about 8x CPU performance, and this thread won't have helped. So
I wanted to say that now I am convinced that (for my workload) these machines
are fine. To the point where I have installed 7.0-BETA4 on the ten new
8 core servers for a very large load on th webfarm this morning. I'm pleased
toio say that it went off perfectly, the servers took the load and we had
no problems at all. We are running CGI scripts against mySQL under apache22
basically - which is a pretty common thing to do. Ia m using ULE and tthe
amd64 version of the OS.
I will second this even though I do not have hard facts to base this
assumption on. I have - as mentioned above - two web-servers running
7.0 beta 2 on a 8-core and is satisfied with the performance. But my
only comparison are two 2 x dual-core opterons (4-way) where the
8-core handles approx. twice as much load. But maby I should expect
2.5 as much performance since the quad-core is a newer cpu and the
opterons are getting two years old.
I also upgraded our db-server from 6.2 RC1 to 7.0 beta 3 on our DL 380
G5 (4-way) because the server was getting constrained on ressources. I
could either replace my 10K rpm drives (in raid 1+0) with 15K ditto
which would require a downtime which we could not afford at this time
or I could upgrade from 6.2 to 7.0. The upgrade took 10 min. Kernel
and userland had all ready been compiled on the web-server. The
upgrade was worthwhile and the db-server is performing better. On
Sunday I will have some load-numbers and post them on Monday.
--
regards
Claus
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.
Shakespeare
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- From: Andreas Pettersson
- Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- From: Pete French
- Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- References:
- Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- From: Pete French
- Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- Prev by Date: Re: 4.x Collecting pv entries Suggest increasing PMAP_SHPGPERPROC,
- Next by Date: Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- Previous by thread: Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- Next by thread: Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|