Hi.
On 20.07.2012 22:38, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I'm worried that this won't be the only source of "freebsd is slower
than linux" issues.
What can we add to the timer path to make identifying and root causing
this issue easy? I'd just like to be absolutely sure that we're not
only doing the best jo
On 20.07.2012 16:38, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 19.07.2012 18:28, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hm! A timer related bug?
I'll CC mav@ on this, as it was his commit (and work in his general
area.)
I wonder what's going on - is it something to do with the two ACPI
calls inserted there, or is it something t
Hi Alexander,
I'm worried that this won't be the only source of "freebsd is slower
than linux" issues.
What can we add to the timer path to make identifying and root causing
this issue easy? I'd just like to be absolutely sure that we're not
only doing the best job possible, but we can provide so
On 19.07.2012 18:28, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hm! A timer related bug?
I'll CC mav@ on this, as it was his commit (and work in his general area.)
I wonder what's going on - is it something to do with the two ACPI
calls inserted there, or is it something to do with the change in
event timer values?
On 7/19/12 10:12 AM, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
You might simply try a different idle function. See these sysctls:
machdep.idle: acpi
machdep.idle_available: spin, mwait, mwait_hlt, hlt, acpi,
Eric
I've tried your suggestion (with mwait) and the problem went away. Thanks a lot!
This seems like a
Hi Adrian,
I've submitted the PR as kern/170021.
Thanks!
On 7/19/12 11:29 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Oh, and would you please file a PR for this? I've been looking into
ACPI related slowdowns for a while and I'm glad you found a culprit.
Adrian
___
Oh, and would you please file a PR for this? I've been looking into
ACPI related slowdowns for a while and I'm glad you found a culprit.
Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsu
Hm! A timer related bug?
I'll CC mav@ on this, as it was his commit (and work in his general area.)
I wonder what's going on - is it something to do with the two ACPI
calls inserted there, or is it something to do with the change in
event timer values?
mav? Any ideas?
Adrian
On 17 July 2012 1
On 07/17/12 15:39, Steve McCoy wrote:
On 7/13/12 9:39 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:47:28 pm Steve McCoy wrote:
On 7/12/12 4:34 PM, Steve McCoy wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
Barring that, can you do a binary search of kernels from stable/8
between 8.1
and 8.2 on an 8.1 w
On 7/13/12 9:39 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:47:28 pm Steve McCoy wrote:
On 7/12/12 4:34 PM, Steve McCoy wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
Barring that, can you do a binary search of kernels from stable/8
between 8.1
and 8.2 on an 8.1 world to see which commit caused the cha
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:47:28 pm Steve McCoy wrote:
> On 7/12/12 4:34 PM, Steve McCoy wrote:
> > On 7/12/12 4:14 PM, Charles Owens wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:36:04 pm Charles Owens wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 6/15/12 8:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> > On Friday, June 15, 2012 12:28
On 7/12/12 4:34 PM, Steve McCoy wrote:
On 7/12/12 4:14 PM, Charles Owens wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:36:04 pm Charles Owens wrote:
On 6/15/12 8:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2012 12:28:59 am Charles Owens wrote:
>> Hello FreeBSD folk,
>>
>> We're seeing what appears
On 7/12/12 4:14 PM, Charles Owens wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:36:04 pm Charles Owens wrote:
On 6/15/12 8:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2012 12:28:59 am Charles Owens wrote:
>> Hello FreeBSD folk,
>>
>> We're seeing what appears to be a storage performance regression
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:36:04 pm Charles Owens wrote:
>
> On 6/15/12 8:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, June 15, 2012 12:28:59 am Charles Owens wrote:
> >> Hello FreeBSD folk,
> >>
> >> We're seeing what appears to be a storage performance regression as we
> >> try to move from 8.1
On 6/15/12 8:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2012 12:28:59 am Charles Owens wrote:
Hello FreeBSD folk,
We're seeing what appears to be a storage performance regression as we
try to move from 8.1 (i386) to 8.3. We looked at 8.2 also and it
appears that the regression happened b
reebsd.org>>
To: "Charles Owens" mailto:cow...@greatbaysoftware.com>>
Cc: mailto:sta...@freebsd.org>>
Subject: mfi(4) IO performance regression, post 8.1
Date: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 1:55 am
Hm, can you try different subversion checkouts of the kernel
On Friday, June 15, 2012 12:28:59 am Charles Owens wrote:
> Hello FreeBSD folk,
>
> We're seeing what appears to be a storage performance regression as we
> try to move from 8.1 (i386) to 8.3. We looked at 8.2 also and it
> appears that the regression happened between 8.1 and 8.2.
>
> Our sys
e, Inc.
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Adrian Chadd"
> To: "Charles Owens"
> Cc:
> Subject: mfi(4) IO performance regression, post 8.1
> Date: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 1:55 am
>
>
> Hm, can you try different subversio
Yes, of course. So far I can say that the major shift appears to have occurred
between 8.1 and 8.2 .
Thanks,
Charles Owens
Great Bay Software, Inc.
Sent from my phone
- Reply message -
From: "Adrian Chadd"
To: "Charles Owens"
Cc:
Subject: mfi(4) IO performa
Hm, can you try different subversion checkouts of the kernel tree
between 8.1 and 8.3, to pinpoint which commit(s) broke things?
ADrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe,
Hello FreeBSD folk,
We're seeing what appears to be a storage performance regression as we
try to move from 8.1 (i386) to 8.3. We looked at 8.2 also and it
appears that the regression happened between 8.1 and 8.2.
Our system is an Intel S5520UR Server with 12 GB RAM, dual 4-core CPUs.
Sto
21 matches
Mail list logo
