Re: swap performance under 6.1
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:55:00PM +, David E. Cross wrote: > Yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that my 6.1 partition > has a bad block in .. say.. libc that's delaying reads and causing me > trouble, I just remember installing 6.1 and thinking "OUCH". > > I get the impression that this is a latency issue more then a bandwidth > issue (responsiveness vs performance). so I think that any long running > test to see how effecitvely we swap isn't going to show anything. > > I could totally re-partition and get 4.x, 5.x and 6.x all on > concurrently if that would help. But I think I would need a good test > program to have waiting in the wings to quantitatively measure the > differences; anyone have any ideas? The stress2 suite (www.holm.cc/stress) has a utility that is designed to stress this, you could check relative performance (after making sure it's deterministic). Kris pgp9LzcDgl2gd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: swap performance under 6.1
Yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that my 6.1 partition has a bad block in .. say.. libc that's delaying reads and causing me trouble, I just remember installing 6.1 and thinking "OUCH". I get the impression that this is a latency issue more then a bandwidth issue (responsiveness vs performance). so I think that any long running test to see how effecitvely we swap isn't going to show anything. I could totally re-partition and get 4.x, 5.x and 6.x all on concurrently if that would help. But I think I would need a good test program to have waiting in the wings to quantitatively measure the differences; anyone have any ideas? (and yes, as Garance quoted, swap partition is shared) -- David E. Cross On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 14:46 -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 11:44 AM -0600 4/12/06, Scott Long wrote: > >Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >>At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>> > >>>I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, > >>>but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and > >>>quantify any performance differences here - so far it's > >>>just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including > >>>mine) after upgrading from 4.x. > >> > >>In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Those are the two installations he has on > >>his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- > >>booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers > >>to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. > > > >Is he using the same swap partitions for both of the dual-booted > >OS's? If not, he's measuring the speed of the disk at the outer > >tracks vs the inner tracks. There may indeed be performance > >issues in the OS, but they need to be quanitfied in a controlled > >environment and not be subject to things like this. > > David has been talking about this on a local chat system for a > week or two now, but apparently he doesn't track the freebsd > mailing lists as much as I do... > > From a comment he made on that chat system: > >- As an additional datapoint, I am actually sharing the >- swap partition between the 6.0 and 6.1 partitions, so >- that should eliminate any problems there. Now is the >- 6.1 partition itself has disk issues it could still >- explain my problems > >- OS's are on the same physical drive, different partition, >- GENERIC for 6.0 and 6.1 > > It wouldn't surprise either me or David if this was something > specific to his system or his setup, but we're running out of > ideas of what that would be. (and we're both busy juggling a > few other things in our main jobs, so we're probably not as > focused on this as issue we would like to be...). > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: swap performance under 6.1
At 11:44 AM -0600 4/12/06, Scott Long wrote: Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and quantify any performance differences here - so far it's just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including mine) after upgrading from 4.x. In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those are the two installations he has on his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. Is he using the same swap partitions for both of the dual-booted OS's? If not, he's measuring the speed of the disk at the outer tracks vs the inner tracks. There may indeed be performance issues in the OS, but they need to be quanitfied in a controlled environment and not be subject to things like this. David has been talking about this on a local chat system for a week or two now, but apparently he doesn't track the freebsd mailing lists as much as I do... From a comment he made on that chat system: - As an additional datapoint, I am actually sharing the - swap partition between the 6.0 and 6.1 partitions, so - that should eliminate any problems there. Now is the - 6.1 partition itself has disk issues it could still - explain my problems - OS's are on the same physical drive, different partition, - GENERIC for 6.0 and 6.1 It wouldn't surprise either me or David if this was something specific to his system or his setup, but we're running out of ideas of what that would be. (and we're both busy juggling a few other things in our main jobs, so we're probably not as focused on this as issue we would like to be...). -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: swap performance under 6.1
Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +, David E. Cross wrote: I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not done". > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought > was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel > on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) Note... > and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would > be eager to help track this down if someone could give me > some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would > seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and quantify any performance differences here - so far it's just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including mine) after upgrading from 4.x. In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those are the two installations he has on his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. Is he using the same swap partitions for both of the dual-booted OS's? If not, he's measuring the speed of the disk at the outter tracks vs the inner tracks. There may indeed be performance issues in the OS, but they need to be quanitfied in a controlled environment and not be subject to things like this. Scott ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: swap performance under 6.1
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:36:43PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +, David E. Cross wrote: > >> I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap > >> performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not > >> done". > >> > > > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought > > > was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel > > > on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) > > Note... > > > > and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would > > > be eager to help track this down if someone could give me > > > some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would > > > seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. > > > >I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, > >but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and > >quantify any performance differences here - so far it's > >just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including > >mine) after upgrading from 4.x. > > In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those are the two installations he has on > his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- > booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers > to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. Thanks, I did read his email :-) My point was that the problem was not believed to exist in that situation, so it's even more surprising and needs further investigation to be sure. Kris pgpkjc54voiLb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: swap performance under 6.1
At 12:03 AM -0400 4/12/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +, David E. Cross wrote: I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not done". > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought > was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel > on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) Note... > and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would > be eager to help track this down if someone could give me > some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would > seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and quantify any performance differences here - so far it's just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including mine) after upgrading from 4.x. In Dave's case, the tests are explicitly 6.0-release vs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those are the two installations he has on his laptop, which he is comparing to each other via dual- booting. The thing is, he's not sure how to get the numbers to back up the performance "feel" that he's experiencing. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: swap performance under 6.1
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:32PM +, David E. Cross wrote: > I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap > performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not > done". > > I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought was better. As > a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel on my laptop with identical > ports trees (and packages) and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to > swapping; I would be eager to help track this down if someone could give > me some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would seem > like some of the scheduling priorities changed. (this is with GENERIC > under 6.0 and 6.1, this is with 6.1-PRERELEASE from April 5; I can CVSUP > to the latest if people think things have changed.) I didn't think this was a 6.1 regression compared to 6.0, but 6.x compared to 4.x. It would be good to try and quantify any performance differences here - so far it's just a bunch of people's subjective opinions (including mine) after upgrading from 4.x. Kris pgpKPI5KwVP1p.pgp Description: PGP signature
swap performance under 6.1
I saw under http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html that swap performance under 6.x is slower then 4.X, and this is listed as "not done". I noticed that 6.1 seemed to be a dog, but 6.0 I thought was better. As a test I installed 6.0 and 6.1 in parallel on my laptop with identical ports trees (and packages) and 6.0 does feel a lot more responisve to swapping; I would be eager to help track this down if someone could give me some pointers. If I have to _guess_ as to a problem it would seem like some of the scheduling priorities changed. (this is with GENERIC under 6.0 and 6.1, this is with 6.1-PRERELEASE from April 5; I can CVSUP to the latest if people think things have changed.) -- David E. Cross ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
