-----Original Message----- From: Nick Pavlica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:45:44 -0700 Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
:em1897, : I'm curious how you are testing. In my testing, the 5.4 pre IP :stack performed very well. I was able to get 100% more throughput :than Linux (2.6.10 FC3) under heavy load on the exact same hardware. :I was actually surprised at the difference because I have been a Linux :Zellot for years. I didn't see any packet loss in my tests, but I do :have good quality networking gear and servers. I was happy enough :after my testing that I'm going to move my 4.x servers to 5.4 when :it's released. I haven't tested dragonfly yet, but get all the :performance I need out of FreeBSD. : :--Nick
on a side note, I thought top posting was a no-no? I see gmail has the same issues as AOL. Or are the issues with the old farts with their newsreaders? :-)
I don't get your logic. You are converting your servers from 4.x to 5.4 because you've found that 5.4 is faster than linux? Is that some sort of riddle? FreeBSD has always been faster than linux; I'm comparing FreeBSD 4.x to 5.4, so I'm not sure what linux has to do with anything here.
What you can "get" in terms of throughput doesn't always give you
the right answer. My tests measure kernel performance; as I'm
interested in routing/packet-processing performance. Sockets add
a tricky variable. But I take the IP stack out of the equation altogether
by bridging packets through a box, and I prefer to use a 50% load
as timings sometimes change when you start to saturate things
unnaturally. You won't be running your machine at 100% load, so
it makes no sense to test it that way.
For the latest test I have a 3.06Ghz xeon bridging 486,000pps. For FreeBSD 4.9, this is a 50% load. The load under 5.4 is 65%. It tests interrupt and process switching performance, which for a networking device is a key performance indicator. (I think) that the 5.4 kernel is threaded, so there are latencies that are very difficult to overcome. Linux has been threaded for a long time, and always has been a poor Uniprocessor performer. 5.4 is better than linux with one processor, but if you are UP then 4.x is clearly the way to go. Linux kills 5.4 with dual processors; in fact 5.4 seems to have higher network performance with 1 processor than 2. They still have a lot of issues to work out. DragonflyBSD has done a nice job with MP, but their performance is still a work in progress. For UP, their performance is dismal so its not quite where it needs to be, but its promising.
I just wish that they had done a 64-bit version of 4.x. Because at the moment it seems that there is no way to utilize the opteron fully without having to use a slow version of the OS, which negates the gains. Its a real shame.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:55:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
slow
:Boris,
: I would agree that my initial impression of 5.3 was that it was
:compared to 4.x. After some tuning, I now have 5.3 running at annewer
:acceptable performance level. You may want to start testing the
:versions of 5 current. I have noticed improved performance on mytest
:servers and believe that 5.4 will demonstrate an improvement init
:performance. I know that the guys on the performance list would like
:to get some good feedback if you find any specific bottlenecks with
its:as well. : :--Nick
FYI, I recently testing bridging/network performance on 5.4-pre and
about the same as 5.3: 25 to 30% more CPU load for the same traffic levels than 4.x. SMP drops packets at about 60% load and seems to have a lower capacity than UP. I'm sure some things are faster, but networking is a large component for most people I think. Threaded network stacks just don't seem to perform well, certainly not on UP. Linux MP works much better, but with 2 CPUs it has the capacity of FreeBSD 4.x with 1. So its hard to justify.
FWIW, its quite a bit better with UP than DragonFLY, but dragonfly is much better with 2 processors.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:51:43 -0800 (PST), Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- cyb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/amd64.html > > > > Looks like you will need to use 5.3-release (or > > 5.3-stable/5.4-prerelease if you have more than > > 4GB). > > > > Why can you not use 5.3? > > 5.3 is too slow, and we have custom code. Why use > faster hardware just to use slower version of O/S? > Please don't start with flames. This is what I > feel. > > I don't need so much RAM, so 4.x will work with > 1 or 2GB of RAM? > > Boris > > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 09:43 -0800, Boris > > Spirialitious wrote: > > > --- Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have > > 4.9. > > > > is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x. > > > > > > > > Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I > > > > use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any > > > > big problems? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > Does anyone know answer please? Someone must use > > > Opteron here > > > > > > Boris > > > > -- > > GnuPG key : 0xD25FCC81 | > > http://cyb.websimplex.de/pubkey.asc > > Fingerprint: D182 6F22 7EEC DD4C 0F6E 564C 691B > > 0372 D25F CC81 > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >
_______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
