В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:05:12 +0100
Oliver Pinter пишет:
> On 12/15/11, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether
> >>> to change back
Am 15.12.2011, 08:32 Uhr, schrieb O. Hartmann
:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts of
the benchmark. A difference of a factor 10 or 100 is simp
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> It is already easy to switch schedulers. You change the
> option in your kernel config, rebuild kernel (world isn't
> necessary as long as you haven't csup'd between your last
> rebuild and now), make installkernel, shutdown -r now,
> done.
and you have thereby shot fre
On 15/12/2011 00:42, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> It is already easy to switch schedulers. You change the option in your
> kernel config, rebuild kernel (world isn't necessary as long as you
> haven't csup'd between your last rebuild and now), make installkernel,
> shutdown -r now, done.
>
> If what
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:39:50AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
>> > I believe the correct thing to do is to put some extra documentation
>> > into the handbook about scheduler choice, noting the potenti
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
The pictur
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems, different compilers, different GUIs...
No, the same
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 08:32 Uhr, schrieb O. Hartmann
:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts of
the benchmark
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Larabel"
I was the on that carried out the testing and know that it was on the
same system.
All of the testing, including the system tables, is fully automated.
Under FreeBSD sometimes the parsing of some component strings isn't as
nice as Linu
On 12/15/2011 05:02 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Michael Larabel"
I was the on that carried out the testing and know that it was on the
same system.
All of the testing, including the system tables, is fully automated.
Under FreeBSD sometimes the parsing
Am 15.12.2011, 11:55 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
:
On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
And with different filesystems,
Hi, all,
Am 15.12.2011 um 12:18 schrieb Michael Ross:
> Following Steven Hartlands' suggestion,
> from one of my machines:
>
> /usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#sysctl -a | egrep "hw.vendor|hw.product"
>
> /usr/ports/sysutils/dmidecode/#dmidecode -t 2
> # dmidecode 2.11
> SMBIOS 2.6 present.
>
> H
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +0400, Andrey Zonov wrote:
> > On 14.12.2011 22:22, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > >On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:11:47PM +0400, Andrey Zonov wrote:
> > >>Hi Jeremy,
> > >>
> > >>This is not hardware problem, I'
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:55:16AM -0600, Michael Larabel wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 04:41 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
> >Am 15.12.2011, 11:10 Uhr, schrieb Michael Larabel
> >:
> >
> >>On 12/15/2011 02:48 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
> >
> >>>Anyway these tests were performed on different hardware, FWIW.
> >>>A
It would be also nice to see whether compiling the kernel and the world
for the specific machine counts. I think it's an advantage of FreeBSD,
but never could do a benchmark comparing this.
Andras
15.12.2011 12:19 napján Michael Larabel ezt írta:
On 12/15/2011 05:02 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
Having a quick look at those results aren't there a few annomolies e.g.
THREADED I/O TESTER for Oracle reports 10255.75MB/s
Which is clearly impossible for a single HD system meaning
its basically caching the entire data set?
Regards
Steve
> Well, the only way it's going to get fixed is if someone sits down,
> replicates it, and starts to document exactly what it is that these
> benchmarks are/aren't doing.
>
I think you will find that investigation is largely a waste of time,
because not only are some of these benchmarks just downr
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:51:02PM +0400, Andrey Zonov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +0400, Andrey Zonov wrote:
> > > On 14.12.2011 22:22, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:11:47PM +0400, Andrey Z
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
journaling enabled) s
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>
> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is mo
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:32:47AM -0700, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> > Well, the only way it's going to get fixed is if someone sits down,
> > replicates it, and starts to document exactly what it is that these
> > benchmarks are/aren't doing.
> >
>
> I think you will find that investigation is lar
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>
>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>
> Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
>
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
[…]
> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done.
>
> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two
> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and
> SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is
With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
with the following:-
http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
This is on a clean 8.2-RELEASE-p4
Upgrading to RELENG_9 fixed this but its a b
On 12/15/2011 08:26 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was
u
15.12.2011 15:48, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'm getting to the point where I'm considering formulating a private
mail to Jeff Roberson, requesting that he be aware of the discussion
that's happening (not that he necessarily follow or read it), and that
based on what I can tell we're at a roadblock -
15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeB
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:20:04PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
> benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
> tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
> with the following:-
> http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
>
> T
Lars Engels wrote:
9.0 ships with gcc and clang which both need to be compiled, 8.2 only
has gcc.
Ahh, any reason we need both, and is it possible to disable clang?
Regards
Steve
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
> Lars Engels wrote:
>>
>> 9.0 ships with gcc and clang which both need to be compiled, 8.2 only
>> has gcc.
>
>
> Ahh, any reason we need both, and is it possible to disable clang?
man src.conf
add WITHOUT_CLANG=yes to /etc/src.conf
--
Ei
on 15/12/2011 14:29 Steven Hartland said the following:
> Having a quick look at those results aren't there a few annomolies e.g.
> THREADED
> I/O TESTER for Oracle reports 10255.75MB/s
>
> Which is clearly impossible for a single HD system meaning
> its basically caching the entire data set?
I
2011/12/9 George Mitchell :
> dnetc is an open-source program from http://www.distributed.net/. It
> tries a brute-force approach to cracking RC4 puzzles and also computes
> optimal Golomb rulers. It starts up one process per CPU and runs at
> nice 20 and is, for all intents and purposes, 100% co
2011/12/14 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/13/2011 7:01 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone experiencing problems tried to set sysctl
>> kern.sched.steal_thresh=1 ?
>>
>> I don't remember what our specific problem at $WORK was, perhaps it
>> was just interrupt threads not getting serviced fast enou
2011/12/13 Daniel Kalchev :
>
>
> On 13.12.11 09:36, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> I personally would find it interesting if someone with a higher-end system
>> (e.g. 2 physical CPUs, with 6 or 8 cores per CPU) was to do the same test
>> (changing -jX to -j{numofcores} of course).
>
>
> Is 4 way 8 c
2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>> > issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>> > performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
>>
>> Do we have any
On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
Hi Attilio,
It was the same codebase.
> Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
> migration around for both cases?
I can, but how do
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
>
> Hi Attilio,
> It was the same codebase.
>
>
>> Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
>> migration aroun
On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
> tmpfs volume?
There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not writing to the disk.
>
> Also what
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
>> tmpfs volume?
>
> There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
> I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not wri
On 15/12/2011 14:20, Steven Hartland wrote:
So for this use ULE vs 4BSD is neither here-nor-there
but 9.0 buildworld is very slow (x2 slower) compared
with 8.2 so whats a bigger question in my mind.
clang is new in 9.0 and takes a long time to build.
--
Bruce Cran
_
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
> >> > issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much
Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
>
>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>>
>>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>>
>> Just curious: W
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/12/13 Daniel Kalchev :
>>
>>
>> On 13.12.11 09:36, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>>
>>> I personally would find it interesting if someone with a higher-end system
>>> (e.g. 2 physical CPUs, with 6 or 8 cores per CPU) was to do the same test
>>>
Am 12/15/11 14:58, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> […]
>> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done.
>>
>> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two
>> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users a
Am 12/15/11 15:20, schrieb Steven Hartland:
> With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
> benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
> tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
> with the following:-
> http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
>
> This is on a clean 8.2
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stoc
2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>> >> > issue. And yes, there ar
On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>
Er... does ext4 guarantee data integrity?
You're not com
On Friday, December 09, 2011 10:05:49 am Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>
> On 12/9/11 10:13 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
> > FreeBSD 9.0-RC3 is looking good, but I'm still encountering two problems.
> >
> > Firstly, when I try to configure VLANs in /etc/rc.conf, I'm getting
> > errors. For example, if I use
>
В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:02:44 +0100
Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> >> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >> >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to r
Howdy,
Web server under heavy'ish load (7 on a 2 cpu system) running
8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386 I'm seeing this:
PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
12 root -32- 0K 112K WAIT0 129:01 39.99% {swi4: clock}
Any ideas why the clock should be taking so much
On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
> - Reboot
> - Change the steal_thresh value
> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and minis
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:51:28PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Web server under heavy'ish load (7 on a 2 cpu system) running
> 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386 I'm seeing this:
>
> PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
> 12 root -32- 0K 112K WAIT0 12
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
>> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
>> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
>> - Reboot
>> - Change the steal_thresh value
>> - Make the test 4 t
In the last episode (Dec 15), Jeremy Chadwick said:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:51:28PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Web server under heavy'ish load (7 on a 2 cpu system) running
> > 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386 I'm seeing this:
> >
> > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:35:39PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Dec 15), Jeremy Chadwick said:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:51:28PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > Web server under heavy'ish load (7 on a 2 cpu system) running
> > > 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386 I'm seeing this:
> > >
>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
>> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
>> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>>
On 15 Dec 2011 21:25, "Kevin Oberman" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> >> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
> >> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more
co
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identified 4
> real report on which we could work on and summarizied in the attached
> Excel file.
> I'd like that George, Steve, Doug, Andrey and Mike possibly review the
> f
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> Real time scheduler changing would be insane! I was thinking that
> both/any/all schedulers could be compiled into the kernel, and the
> choice of which one to use becomes a boot time configuration. You
> don't have to recompile the kernel to ch
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using a kernel + compiler almost 2 years old, i
Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using a kernel + compiler a
On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote:
> Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>>
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>>>
>> it might be worth highlighting that
63 matches
Mail list logo
