Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing? freenx@deweyonline.com
- From: User Ota <ota@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:05:53 -0500
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 09:08:02AM +0100, Claus Guttesen wrote:
I will need to build several Web caches over the next few months,
and just took advantage of the Christmas lull (and a snowy day,
when I couldn't work outside) to test FreeBSD 7.0 BETA 4 to see how
it will perform at this task. I built up a 4 core FreeBSD box, and
asked a friend who's a Linux fanatic to do the same with Linux on
identical hardware. I didn't watch closely how he installed
everything, but asked him not to tune it beyond setting it up
properly for SMP.
We then ran a test suite in which a client starts several
processes. Each uses wget to fetch a series of objects in rapid
succession via the cache. The fetches done by each process are the
same batch of URLS, but shuffled differently, so each URL will get
a miss the first time and then hits each time it comes up
thereafter unless the cache overflows. We're doing all GETs, with
no tricky stuff like subranges.
As has been reported in some other messages on this list, Linux is
currently blowing FreeBSD away. It's taking as much as 20% less
time to get through the benchmark, depending on exactly how the
random shuffle came out. This is with 4 GB RAM, the GENERIC FreeBSD
SMP kernel (using SCHED_ULE), and aufs as the storage schema for Squid.
It appears, though I'd need to instrument the code more to be sure,
that the slowdown is coming from file I/O. Could it be that there
less concurrency or more overhead in FreeBSD file operations than
there is in Linux? Even with SoftUpdates turned on, the cache
volume mounted with -noatime, and aufs (which uses kqueues -- a
FreeBSD invention -- to optimize multithreaded disk access), the
benchmark shows FreeBSD losing out. Why?
I have noticed an entry in GENERIC called
device cpufreq
Could this have any influence on the performance (on FreeBSD)?
I saw this device late in the 7.0 release-process and I since I'm
accustomed to comment out any devices and options I don't need I have
commented this out as well. So I haven't performed any tests with and
without this device.
--
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"
Cpufreq is for CPU frequency scaling. In the linux world, the cpufreq
daemon allows you to control your cpu speed and voltage using power
profiles and such, which makes it a definite power saving tool for
laptops. The cpufreq driver is already included with the Linux kernel,
so I'm going to assume that they've just implemented the cpufreq driver
in the kernel recently :)
If enabled, it probably would have an impact on performance, however I
have lost the ability to test such a function since my laptop decides
not to POST anymore.
Russell Doucette
_______________________________________________
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: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing? freenx@deweyonline.com
- From: Claus Guttesen
- Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing? freenx@deweyonline.com
- References:
- SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing?
- From: Brett Glass
- Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing?
- From: Claus Guttesen
- SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing?
- Prev by Date: Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing?
- Next by Date: Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing?
- Previous by thread: Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing?
- Next by thread: Re: SMP on FreeBSD 6.x and 7.0: Worth doing? freenx@deweyonline.com
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
