Attila Nagy wrote:
On 2008.04.03. 15:21, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Attila Nagy wrote:
On 01/29/08 11:40, Attila Nagy wrote:
ps: I have an other problem. I've recently switched from a last year
6-STABLE to 7-STABLE and got pretty bad results on the same machine
with the same bind (9.4).
The graphs are here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/nagy.attila/20080129Fbsd6vs7Bind
The problem still persists and now I can provide some profiling info,
made by HWPMC.
Sorry if you already answer this question, but at least I can find it
in the thread.
What scheduler are you using on RELENG_7 ?
Did you check with both schedulers (ule/4bsd) to see which one works
better for you?
Also are you sure that you service the same number of requests - I see
that the 6.x image shows CPU usage from
Aug 2007 and 7.x image is from Jan 2008 ... is it possible, that you
have more requests and that's why your CPU usage increased?
As for the pictures: GENERIC kernels, so 4BSD on both versions (6 and 7).
As for the profiling info: 4BSD on 6, ULE on 7 (because both were
upgraded yesterday, and ULE is now default in RELENG_7)
The pictures are from the same timeframe (what aug 2007 refers to is the
time when the OS was compiled), the two machines were behind a per
packet load balancer, so yes: at least in pps, they've got exactly the
same traffic (of course it was possible be that one machine could serve
the answer directly from the cache, while the other had to go out, but
I've started them at the same time, so I think this effect was minimized).
User time is much greater so named is doing much more work for some
reason. It doesn't appear that this is a kernel problem. Verify that
the config is identical, and you are not overloading it (bind doesn't
scale beyond 4 threads).
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
