Ivan Voras wrote:
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
(However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2
unixbench outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench
does a cat /proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the
output under linux to
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
>> (However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2
>> unixbench outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench
>> does a cat /proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the
>> output under linux to the "pro
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
(However, just to give you an idea I attached the basic 5.1.2 unixbench
outputs (the CPU info for FreeBSD is "fake", since unixbench does a cat
/proc/cpuinfo, so I removed the /proc/ part and copied the output under
linux to the "procinfo" file.)
Of course I forgot t
Ivan Voras wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
1 2 4
freebsd 12.0009 13.6348 12.9402 (MB/s)
linux 376.145 651.314 634.649 (MB/s)
Both virtual machi
Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to deploy a production FreeBSD web site (database cluster, apache
> cluster, ip failover using carp, etc.), however I'm experiencing painful
> disk I/O throughput problems which currently does not make the above
> project viable. I've done some rudimentar
Hi,
I want to deploy a production FreeBSD web site (database cluster, apache
cluster, ip failover using carp, etc.), however I'm experiencing painful
disk I/O throughput problems which currently does not make the above
project viable. I've done some rudimentary benchmarking of two
identically
Ehm, you have posted the exact same lines from the log... Until you find
new lines you are probably fine...
/Bjorn
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Alex Dehaini wrote:
> Any ideas
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Alex Dehaini wrote:
>
> > I increased net.inet.icmp.icmplim to 2000 but this does not make
