Re: AMD64 Diablo 1.5 JDK and libthr
On 8/1/06, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: libc_r average hits per minute: 8,841 libc_r session average:4,481 libc_r transactions per minute: 2,947 libthr average hits per minute: 9,020 libthr session average: 4,380 libthr transactions per minute: 3,004 libpthread average hits per minute: 6,128 libpthread session average: 3,139 libpthread transactions per minute: 2,043 For completeness here is a repaste of the SMP kernel results libc_r average hits per minute: 6,859 libc_r session average: 3,441 libc_r transactions per minute: 2,310 libthr average hits per minute: 11,581 libthr session average: 5,573 libthr transactions per minute: 3861 libpthread average hits per minute: 8,823 libpthread session average: 4,500 libpthread transactions per minute: 2891 Just to clarify. This is all with and AMD64 cpu under i386 mode while under amd64 mode libthr fails with a core dump. Right? Thanks for this infos, very interesting and useful. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote: > I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference. That would be very interesting. BTW you really did a good and very compete job, thanks! Regards -- Massimo.run(); ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:36:34 -0500 Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I added OpenBSD to the mix as well. Results are pretty crappy > with the base default install. With one stream, the box essentially > live locks. This was just with the stock kernels from the CD. The > PCIe bge nics dont work, so I cant test those. I had a look at their > errata page and there seems to be some updates to those 2 nics so if > there is interest I can try compiling in those fixes and re-testing FWIW I would definitively like to see it. But thanks for going so far.. -- Massimo ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:51:55 -0400 Kevin Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I built 7.0 as of 6 days ago, and ran the same test using 8-cores, ULE > and 4BSD. The results are available at: > > http://blog.insidesystems.net/articles/2007/04/11/postgresql-scaling-on-6-2-and-7-0 > > Unfortunately, I can't run the additional tests, as the machines in > question have now been deployed to production. I should have similar > equipment available in a few weeks, and will try the other tests at that > point. That's really nice. BTW have you numbers to compare with others OS or DBMS? Regards -- Massimo.run(); I have a hard time being attracted to anyone who can beat me up. -- John McGrath, Atlanta sportswriter, on women weightlifters. ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: freebsd router
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:44:53 +0200 Samuel MartÃn Moro wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm trying to replace my (dying) gateway with a qnap ts-509 (1G DDR, > celeron m420 1.6Ghzs). Someway OT but... do you have the LCD display work out from that box!? Cheers -- Massimo ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
