Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread BOUWSMA Beery
Serwoas! %s wrote on %.3s, %lld Sep 1993 > > Could it be due to the DDB, INVARIANTS & WITNESS options in the > > kernel? If it is that's fine with me, I'm just wondering where > > that magnitude of a slowdown would be coming from. > WITNESS can really hurt. Quite possibly I should turn it off

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread John Baldwin
On 07-Feb-02 Georg-W Koltermann wrote: > At Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:33:14 -0500 (EST), > John Baldwin wrote: >> >> [...] >> I guess. Note that you can use a loader tunable 'debug.witness_watch' to >> turn >> witness off from the loader. If it's set to 0 witness won't be used even if >> it's compil

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:10:05AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > On current On stable > -- -- > real7m 43.392s 4m 53.100sin /usr/src for current > user0m 11.692s 0m 4.203s > sys 3m 4.601s 0m 2.248s > > real6m 40.322

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread Georg-W Koltermann
At Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:33:14 -0500 (EST), John Baldwin wrote: > > [...] > I guess. Note that you can use a loader tunable 'debug.witness_watch' to turn > witness off from the loader. If it's set to 0 witness won't be used even if > it's compiled into the kernel (just a general FYI, witness(4) d

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On 6 Feb, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > Anything else I should check? I realize there's about a million > differences between the two branches, and there might also be > something about my machine's setup which is a major culprit here. > I'm just looking for a basic idea of what other people have

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread Martin Faxér
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:08:07 +0100 Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:15:02AM +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > > > I'm just looking for a basic idea of what other people have been > > > seeing for performance when they run current. > > > > There is another common sour

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread Wilko Bulte
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:15:02AM +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > Garance A Drosihn wrote (2002/02/06): > > Anything else I should check? I realize there's about a million > > differences between the two branches, and there might also be > > something about my machine's setup which is a major culpr

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-11 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 12:10 AM -0500 2/6/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >One simple test I tried was that I have a copy of the freebsd cvs >repository in /usr/cvs/free, on it's own partition. Each system >has it's own /usr/src, of course. I cvsup'ed /usr/cvs/free, and >then did a > time cvs status >/dev/null >i

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread John Baldwin
On 07-Feb-02 Georg-W Koltermann wrote: > At Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:33:14 -0500 (EST), > John Baldwin wrote: >> >> [...] >> I guess. Note that you can use a loader tunable 'debug.witness_watch' to >> turn >> witness off from the loader. If it's set to 0 witness won't be used even if >> it's compil

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread Terry Lambert
Wilko Bulte wrote: > > There is another common source of confusion: If anybody has IDE > > disks, write-caching is enabled by default in -stable, but disabled > > in -current. > > I don't think that is true anymore. -stable has WC enabled as well. "Friends don't let friends cache writes" ??? [

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread Steven Ames
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:08:07 +0100 > Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There is another common source of confusion: If anybody has IDE > > > disks, write-caching is enabled by default in -stable, but disabled > > > in -current. > > > > I don't think that is true anymore. -stable has W

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread Martin Faxér
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:08:07 +0100 Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:15:02AM +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > > > I'm just looking for a basic idea of what other people have been > > > seeing for performance when they run current. > > > > There is another common sour

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread Wilko Bulte
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:15:02AM +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > Garance A Drosihn wrote (2002/02/06): > > Anything else I should check? I realize there's about a million > > differences between the two branches, and there might also be > > something about my machine's setup which is a major culpr

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread Georg-W Koltermann
At Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:33:14 -0500 (EST), John Baldwin wrote: > > [...] > I guess. Note that you can use a loader tunable 'debug.witness_watch' to turn > witness off from the loader. If it's set to 0 witness won't be used even if > it's compiled into the kernel (just a general FYI, witness(4) d

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-07 Thread Cejka Rudolf
Garance A Drosihn wrote (2002/02/06): > Anything else I should check? I realize there's about a million > differences between the two branches, and there might also be > something about my machine's setup which is a major culprit here. > I'm just looking for a basic idea of what other people have

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread John Baldwin
On 06-Feb-02 David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:02:34AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >> WITNESS can really hurt. Quite possibly I should turn it off in >> GENERIC now (I wouldn't mind if someone else did that.) > > I think it should stay. Especially as we are not getting much usag

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 12:10 AM -0500 2/6/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >One simple test I tried was that I have a copy of the freebsd cvs >repository in /usr/cvs/free, on it's own partition. Each system >has it's own /usr/src, of course. I cvsup'ed /usr/cvs/free, and >then did a > time cvs status >/dev/null >i

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 9:13 AM -0800 2/6/02, David O'Brien wrote: >On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:02:34AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >> WITNESS can really hurt. Quite possibly I should turn it off in >> GENERIC now (I wouldn't mind if someone else did that.) > >I think it should stay. Especially as we are not getting

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread Emiel Kollof
On Wednesday 06 February 2002 06:10, Garance A Drosihn wrote: [performance complaint snip] > Could it be due to the DDB, INVARIANTS & WITNESS options in the > kernel? If it is that's fine with me, I'm just wondering where > that magnitude of a slowdown would be coming from. I would think so (io

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:10:05AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > On current On stable > -- -- > real7m 43.392s 4m 53.100sin /usr/src for current > user0m 11.692s 0m 4.203s > sys 3m 4.601s 0m 2.248s > > real6m 40.322

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:40:50AM -0500, Steve Ames wrote: > Is 'AJ' still set in the malloc options? I seem to recall setting > /etc/malloc.conf once in CURRENT for performance reasons. Yes it still is. That is the other thing Garance needs to decide if he wants on or off. To Unsubscribe: s

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:02:34AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > WITNESS can really hurt. Quite possibly I should turn it off in > GENERIC now (I wouldn't mind if someone else did that.) I think it should stay. Especially as we are not getting much usage in -CURRENT. If we turn it off by defaul

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread Steve Ames
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:02:34AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 06-Feb-02 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > Could it be due to the DDB, INVARIANTS & WITNESS options in the > > kernel? If it is that's fine with me, I'm just wondering where > > that magnitude of a slowdown would be coming from. >

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On 6 Feb, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > Anything else I should check? I realize there's about a million > differences between the two branches, and there might also be > something about my machine's setup which is a major culprit here. > I'm just looking for a basic idea of what other people have

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-06 Thread BOUWSMA Beery
Serwoas! %s wrote on %.3s, %lld Sep 1993 > > Could it be due to the DDB, INVARIANTS & WITNESS options in the > > kernel? If it is that's fine with me, I'm just wondering where > > that magnitude of a slowdown would be coming from. > WITNESS can really hurt. Quite possibly I should turn it off

RE: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-05 Thread John Baldwin
On 06-Feb-02 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > Could it be due to the DDB, INVARIANTS & WITNESS options in the > kernel? If it is that's fine with me, I'm just wondering where > that magnitude of a slowdown would be coming from. WITNESS can really hurt. Quite possibly I should turn it off in GENERIC

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-05 Thread k Macy
I asked BDE about the same thing off-list: Yes, the debug options (INVARIANTS and WITNESS, especially the latter) slow down the kernel by a factor of 10 or so. Only progams that don't make many syscalls run reasonably fast. I only turn on these options for debugging (not often). Without them, s

Re: Performance of -current vs -stable

2002-02-05 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : Could it be due to the DDB, INVARIANTS & WITNESS options in the : kernel? If it is that's fine with me, I'm just wondering where : that magnitude of a slowdown would be coming from. No