> Really. Don't post attachments to mailing lists. It's just a bad idea,
> a lot of people will be upset with the bandwidth it consumes. Keep in
> mind that not everyone on the list is interested in every conversation.
Disclaimers should go the same way too! :)
echo "
*
> I wrote a small micro-benchmark utility[1] to test various time syscalls and
> the results were a bit surprising to me. The results were from a UP machine
> and I believe that the difference between gettimeofday(2) and
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME_FAST) would've been bigger on an SMP system an
> > we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
> > It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
> > We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
> > We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
> > This is our mount:
> >
> > nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mn
> Just a thought on the effect that HZ has on filesystem (and overall)
> performance :
> Linux has sort of backtracked from defaulting to HZ=1000 and enable it
> only on kernels compiled
> for "Desktop" work, and setting HZ=250 for the "Server" profile.
I'm doing some db-imports on postgresql on a
> >I had (allready) saved the thread in my mail-account so I could look
> >it up before I started testing. :-) So I compiled postgresql with the
> >option WITH_THREADSAFE=true and used sysbench with --pgsql-host="" .
> >As pointed out by Ivan my test also involved r/w whereas the thread
> >you (pro
> > I forgot to mention in my first post that I'm using ULE. The p800
> > controller has a (factory set) 25/75 read/write cache ratio.
>
> There's maybe one additional thing: do you dual-boot Linux and FreeBSD?
> If so, you'll need to set up a separate additional partition for the
> database, inste
> Ubuntu 7.10:
>
> grep "transactions:" sysbench-clients-24|sort
> transactions:1 (2354.49 per sec.)
> transactions:10001 (2126.28 per sec.)
> transactions:10001 (2215.52 per sec.)
> tr
> > > Ubuntu 7.10:
> > >
> > > grep "transactions:" sysbench-clients-24|sort
> > > transactions:1 (2354.49 per sec.)
> > > transactions:10001 (2126.28 per sec.)
> > > transactions:10001 (2215.52 per sec.)
> > > transacti
Hi.
I have a HP DL360 G5 with a p800 controller with 512 bbwc and a msa70
cabinet with eight 15K rpm sas-disks in raid 1+0. I installed FreeBSD
7.0 stable and ubuntu 7.10 server using postgresql 8.2.5 (from ports
on FreeBSD and as an install-option on ubuntu). Both releases are
amd64. Postgresql o
> > I think this is not current information; the new woodcrest
> > architecture performs mucg better, although this is deduced from
> > this thread's discussion...
>
> Except this thread has largely glossed over the importance of memory
> bandwidth, which is exactly the reason why Opterons have bee
> > Obviously if you can afford SCSI/SAS performance will likely be even
> > better. However make sure you can get management program for the
> > controller. At the very least some type of notification if the raid is
> > degraded.
>
> We will probably go for SCSI. HP DL380 with "HP SmartArray", aka
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:57:32AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >> It seems that Broadcom is back into this game.
> >
> > So far the Broadcom Serverworks HT1000 SATA controller is POO.
> > I'm seeing all kinds of disk corruption with FreeBSD on a Tyan s3992.
> > Googling shows that other Fre
> Palle,
>
> I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my
> understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town.
>
Pls. don't top post!!
>
> -Alfred
>
> * Palle Girgensohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070910 03:16] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are looking at getting a server fo
> We are looking at getting a server for running postgresql. Only postgresql,
> a dedicated machine. Since we know FreeBSD very well, we plan on using it
> as the OS.
>
> We have an offer for an IBM server, x3650, with 2 * DC Intel Xeon 5160,
> Raid with two clusters, one for database and one for x
It's been a couple years since I had to buy another dedicated server. Back
then the AMD Opteron had it hands down. The trade press seems to be
indicating the pendulum has swung the other way and AMD is in trouble,
especially since the Barcelona miss. Also, over the past two years I've
read how
I set up one NFS server, and mounted on other server by TCP. Servers
connected with Giga network, and running 6.2-RELEASE.
But I found the performance is very bad while transfering large block size data.
For example, I use dd on NFS client to test the speed.
And ``systat -vm 1'' is displayed HDD
I'm looking at new machines for high access forums / DB
and wonder if anyone has any experience with how well
FreeBSD specifically 6.2 scales on Dual Quad Core Intel's.
We have some Dual Dual Core's here but I'm considering
the Quad Core upgrade but am a little concerned that
this may start to be
We have been having some trouble with an upgrade to 6.2-Release. The
performance just seems out of whack. We concede that there could be a
reporting issue, but the results we are seeing are far too strange for
that to be our first inclination.
Background:
We have 2 identical supermicro superserv
> A couple of days ago I've moved our production database from local
> disks to NetAPP filer serving NFS. Performance for this server dropped
> by factor of 10 if not more. From a happy 10% load, the server hit the
> ceiling and sees load of 100% all the time with runqueue above 30. The
>
> I can p
2005/12/7, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> First, thanks for the reply.
>
> Now, I see that you too are missing messages
> I don't know when was the last time you rested the counters, but missing
> 22911 events is quite a lot :/
Yes, you're right, some messages are dropped.
syslog~#>
> I'm trying to setup a syslog server to serve a large group of servers.
> For the syslog daemon, I have chosen rsyslogd, and the backend is mysql (on a
> different
> machine).
Maby you could put the syslog-messages into a file and then import it
into mysql?
We have 10 webservers sending http-lo
Hi.
I'm looking at upgrading my db-server. It's currently running FreeBSD
5.4-release and postgresql 7.4.8 on a quad TX46 with 4 GB RAM.
I've searched for comparative benchmarks pitting the TX46 agains a Sun
v40z, but haven't found any that indicates what system does fare the
best. The planned up
> Apart from apache there is sendmail and ssh running (and the basics such as
> tty's, cron and syslog)
>
> All pages are php.
>
> Any ideas on how I can get response times up?
Are you running apache 1.3 or 2.0? Is httpd.conf configured *not* to
do reverse dns-look-up, 'HostnameLookups Off'. Tr
> > > 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 strategy.
> >
I ran them on my dual Xeon @ 2.4 GHz, but it appears that rather than
doing it's calcul
Hi.
I recently lowered max_connections from 1024 to 384 in
/usr/local/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf. The server is a quad opteron @
2 GHz and 4 GB of RAM.
This decreased the SIZE and RES values in top and it seems that the
current max_connections is more than adequate. To see how many
concurrent con
> > > elin% dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfssrv/dd.tst bs=1024 count=1048576
> > > 1048576+0 records in
> > > 1048576+0 records out
> > > 1073741824 bytes transferred in 21.373114 secs (50237968 bytes/sec)
> > >
> >
> >Follow-up, did the same dd on a Dell 2850 with a LSI Logic (amr), 6
> >scsi-disks in a ra
> You could use the atabeast to do two raid 5's, then use vinum to stripe those
> two.
I actually thought of that a while ago (unrelated to this). I read the
vinum-page in the handbook, assume this is still valid. I recall a
discussion regarding it's (re)naming to gvinum, but don't see any
mentio
> That's about what I expected. RAID 5 depends on fast xor, so a slow processor
> in a hardware RAID5 box will slow you down a lot.
>
> You should try taking the two RAID5's (6 disks each) created on your original
> controller and striping those together (RAID 50) - this should get you some
> bet
> elin% dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfssrv/dd.tst bs=1024 count=1048576
> 1048576+0 records in
> 1048576+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes transferred in 21.373114 secs (50237968 bytes/sec)
>
Follow-up, did the same dd on a Dell 2850 with a LSI Logic (amr), 6
scsi-disks in a raid 5:
frodo~%>dd if=/dev/ze
> >>I think you are disk bound.. You should not be disk bound at this point
> >>with a
> >>good RAID controller..
> > Good point, it's an atabeast from nexsan.
> Looks like they are indeed waiting on disk.. You could try making two 6 disk
> raid5 in your controller, then striping those with vinum
> What state is nfsd in? Can you send the output of this:
> ps -auxw|grep nfsd
> while the server is slammed?
elin~%>ps -auxw|grep nfsd
root 378 3,7 0,0 1412 732 ?? DTor07am 4:08,82 nfsd:
server (nfsd)
root 380 3,5 0,0 1412 732 ?? DTor07am 1:56,52 nfsd:
server
> What does gstat look like on the server when you are doing this?
> Also - does a dd locally on the server give the same results? You should get
> about double that I would estimate locally direct to disk. What about a dd
> over
> NFS?
dd-command:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfssrv/dd.tst bs=1024 cou
> When you say 'ide->fiber' that could mean a lot of things. Is this a single
> drive, or a RAID subsystem?
Yes, I do read it different now ;-)
It's a raid 5 with 12 400 GB drives split into two volumes (where I
performed the test on one of them).
regards
Claus
_
> > Q:
> > Will I get better performance upgrading the server from dual PIII to dual
> > Xeon?
> > A:
>
> rsync is CPU intensive, so depending on how much cpu you were using for this,
> you may or may not gain. How busy was the server during that time? Is this
> to
> a single IDE disk? If so,
Hi.
Sorry for x-posting but the thread was originally meant for
freebsd-stable but then a performance-related question slowly emerged
into the message ;-)
Inspired by the nfs-benchmarks by Willem Jan Withagen I ran some
simple benchmarks against a FreeBSD 5.4 RC2-server. My seven clients
are RC1
35 matches
Mail list logo
