On Jun 14, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
It's at least arguable that doing queries against a data set
including a bunch of repeats is "skewed" in a more realistic
fashion. :-) A quick look at some of the data sources I have handy
such as http access logs or Squid proxy logs suggests tha
Hi, Kris--
This was interesting, thanks for putting together the testing and
graphs.
On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I have been benchmarking BIND 9.4.1 recursive query performance on an
8-core opteron, using the resperf utility (dns/dnsperf in ports). The
query data set w
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:53:01PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Hi, Kris--
>
> This was interesting, thanks for putting together the testing and
> graphs.
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >I have been benchmarking BIND 9.4.1 recursive query performance on an
> >8-core opt
Hello Jeff,
Wednesday, June 13, 2007, 10:37:44 PM, you wrote:
> I'm forwarding this email that I sent to current@ in the hopes that some
> performance minded people will tell me their results with this new
> scheduler infrastructure.
Just a quick and maybe silly question:
Why does it pefrofms
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:36:55AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 05:48:17 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > 6.2 was used from CVS with libthr and the 4BSD scheduler (ULE 1.0 is
> > broken in 6.x).
>
> just curious what is broken because I use ULE on several servers perfectly.
> it
On Thursday 14 June 2007 05:48:17 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 6.2 was used from CVS with libthr and the 4BSD scheduler (ULE 1.0 is
> broken in 6.x).
just curious what is broken because I use ULE on several servers perfectly. it
seems to me that ULE is even faster on SMP when not having heavy load.
Al
Hi
NOC Meganet wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 06:59:41 Thomas Vogt wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Thats sounds nice. You wrote "The goal of the PmcTools project is to
>> provide FreeBSD's developers and system administrators with
>> non-intrusive, low-overhead and innovative ways of measuring and
>> analys
On Thursday 14 June 2007 06:59:41 Thomas Vogt wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thats sounds nice. You wrote "The goal of the PmcTools project is to
> provide FreeBSD's developers and system administrators with
> non-intrusive, low-overhead and innovative ways of measuring and
> analysing system performance" your we
Hello,
2007/6/14, Thomas Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi
Thats sounds nice. You wrote "The goal of the PmcTools project is to
provide FreeBSD's developers and system administrators with
non-intrusive, low-overhead and innovative ways of measuring and
analysing system performance" your website. Ha
Hi
Thats sounds nice. You wrote "The goal of the PmcTools project is to
provide FreeBSD's developers and system administrators with
non-intrusive, low-overhead and innovative ways of measuring and
analysing system performance" your website. Have you ever measured the
performance impact of such too
Hello,
I'm glad to announce you that PAPI-3.5.0 has reached the FreeBSD ports
tree and now it's generally available for all FreeBSD users.
Port information is available at
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=papi&stype=all&sektion=devel
See http://code.google.com/p/papi-for-freebsd/wi
I have been benchmarking BIND 9.4.1 recursive query performance on an
8-core opteron, using the resperf utility (dns/dnsperf in ports). The
query data set was taken from www.freebsd.org's httpd-access.log with
some of the highly aggressive robot IP addresses pruned out (to avoid
huge numbers of re
12 matches
Mail list logo
