On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> This is quibbling. On heavy loads on networ, disk et cetera, isn't there
> always and also a CPU bound load?
No. Properly written software blocks when waiting on network or disk I/O, and
doesn't sit there spinning in a busy-wait consuming CPU un
On Nov 18, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Nov 18 10, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 18/11/2010 13:04 O. Hartmann said the following:
>>> On 11/18/10 02:30, grarpamp wrote:
Just documenting regarding interactive performance things.
This one's from Linux.
http://www
On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
[ ... ]
> If I understand correctly, TurboBoost is supposed to increase the frequency
> of one or a small number of cores only?
>
> What is the physical increase in frequency on this CPU when TurboBoost is
> enabled?
It depends on how many cores ar
Hi--
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:04 AM, markham breitbach wrote:
> I am running into an issue where I am seeing load average on a server
> suddenly jump from
> nominal values around 0.5 to anywhere from 10 up over 70 in under 1 second.
> This does not
> seem to be related to CPU overload, and LA imm
Hi--
On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Stephen Sanders wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone has heard of this.
>
> I've a system with a 3ware 9650 servicing 4 7200RPM Segate 1TB drives and the
> motherboard servicing 2 7200 RPM Segate 1TB drives.
>
> The 4 disk array is RAID 6 while the 2 disk array is R
Hi, Steve--
On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Steve Dong wrote:
If there's a better/lighter way to show these graphics, I'd like to
know.
Sure-- put 'em on a webserver somewhere, and put links to them in your
email to this mailing list.
If you wanted to do even better than that, set up a simpl
Hi, David--
On Apr 24, 2009, at 9:50 AM, David Wolfskill wrote:
While I don't have any PHBs in my direct management chain, I've seen
some PHB tendencies in the management of the folks I'm supporting.
And
I get the message that "complicated" won't ccommunicate to them. Nor
will "nuanced."
E
On Oct 23, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Stephen Sanders wrote:
We have an application that is streaming data to disk at the maximum
rate the controller can sustain. The controller should be able to
develop something on the order of 600MB/s but we're only getting
450MB/s.
Are you using RAID-5 or RAID-10
On Oct 23, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Sanders wrote:
Good point about the RAID. It is set for RAID 5 as the data is
supposed
to be protected.
RAID-10 provides somewhat better data protection, but less available
space and better write performance especially for small writes. (For
big wri
On Feb 22, 2008, at 1:58 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42:45PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
TCP mounts should be used whenever possible thesedays (I flipped the
default mode in 8.0 the other day).
And I made TCP mounts the default for Amd over a
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are
encountering;
yes, this is expected and things will work but there is extra latency
added when the IP stack has to reassemble packets before the data can
be delivered. Try setting the
Hi--
On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Valerio Daelli wrote:
99904 total packets received
[ ... ]
61441 fragments received
[ ... ]
34819 output datagrams fragmented
208914 fragments created
Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are encountering;
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
Historically, the Python optimizer wasn't capable of doing much,
true, but the more recent versions of the optimizer can actually do
some peephole optimizations like algorithmic simplification and
constant folding:
http://docs.python.org/whatsn
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
I'm not a python guru by any means, but I think .pyc files probably
have data
about the .py they are generated from because there's some sort of
auto-generation available. It may be possible to not store them at
all and
just generate them before
forgot who it was who made
the offer :) If it was you, please contact me again privately as I
would like to proceed with this.
Was it this thread:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 4, 2007 1:21:51 PM PDT
To: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
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 Mar 7, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Vivek Prasannan wrote:
[ ...cross-posting between freebsd-questions and other FreeBSD lists
is generally not encouraged; Reply-To: set... ]
When I type the command 'w' it holds for a while before printing
the output.
There is no firewall in the system, load ave
On Jan 12, 2007, at 8:07 AM, R. B. Riddick wrote:
As the "OP" (what is that exactly? again an animal?) mentioned:
Apache performs
worse than scp.
Quick testing suggests that an Apache child process accumulates a
similar amount of CPU time transferring large files as scp when using
an SSL
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Or did that change recently?
It's only on certain systems, apparently.
Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with
SMP? Or some script we can run?
The problem of the TSC clocks getting out of sync affects pretty much
a
OxY wrote:
> i increased hz from 2000 to 5000, now the packet loss is decreased
> from 5-6% to 0.6-0,8% !!!
> huge improve!
Good deal.
> should i increase hz more?
Experiment. :-) Keep track of the numbers you get, and post a summary once
you've had a day or two to shake things down.
--
-Chu
OxY wrote:
> yeah, i googled these settings, but i put them back to default then!
> i measured iperf performance, and it showed that the packet drop is
> depending on the system load..
If you are using the normal interrupt-driven configuration, you should look at
netstat -i, -s, and vmstat -i. If
OxY wrote:
> hi!
>
> i had the packet drop problem with the marwell yukon gigabitcard:
> (system is an amd 2000+xp, 512mb ram, fbsd 6.0-p5)
Hi--
The changes you've made in tuning the sysctls are unreasonable on a machine with
only 512 MB of RAM; in particular:
> net.inet.tcp.inflight.max=107372
Francisco wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Small writes are pretty much the worst-case scenario for RAID-5,
Such as mail servers?
So-so. RAID-5 is okay on a IMAP reader box, it's not so good for a pure SMTP
relay, especially one that does virus scanning.
How about
Jeff Tchang wrote:
[ ... ]
When I attempt to write many small files or remove a directory is when the
slowness kicks in. Is this just something due to Raid5? Here is the output
of Bonnie++:
Small writes are pretty much the worst-case scenario for RAID-5, and it's
normal to see a very signific
Xin LI wrote:
It seems that vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem is set to 2MB. I think this value
is slightly too small for modern machines:
[ ... ]
My proposal is to increase the default dirhash_maxmem value to at least
32MB or 64MB. Any objections?
You are undoubtedly right that allocating only 2MB fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ] The tarball is here:
http://www.codespelunking.org/downloads/libMicro.tar.gz
I plan to make a port of this this weekend, but would like some
feedback on this set of benchmarks. If they're useful I think we
should make them part of a nightly benchmarking strat
Mike Tancsa wrote:
A somewhat obvious question to some perhaps, but what server application
mix on FreeBSD today sees an improvement using 64bit CPUs ?
Databases. Big ones, anyway. Other than that, not much, unless you're
running processes which would like to use more than 2GB of RAM.
In my IS
28 matches
Mail list logo
