On 2012-11-20 04:56 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
These numbers show very significant improvements. Any
possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this
too
much work? I know many have and still complain about our current
scheduler.
Just for the record
On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config,
but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting.
And they
are very close to performanc
Has anyone tried these tests with 4.x? Well, i did, and i was surprised
how good the performance is, it gave me the highest number of all tests,
even compared to much faster HW. Although this is all different
hardware, it seems like the performance drops the higher the version of
FreeBSD is, speci
Nick Evans wrote:
Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quite possibly, just as MySQL has been written with Linux primarily in mind.
It should be possible to profile smbd and see where the bottleneck is, no?
Has anyone tried it?
It should be, but i don't believe
Jan Zacharias wrote:
Btw. the same problem exists on MAC OSX, as OSX also uses a BSD Kernel
the problem might be, that samba was optimized for the linux kernel
tcp stack.
Quite possibly, just as MySQL has been written with Linux primarily in mind.
_
Olivier Cochard-Labbe wrote:
Hi all,
I meet a performance problem with my customized distro of FreeBSD
6.1(FreeNAS).
Lot's of FreeNAS users compare the performance of FreeNAS with Linux, and
the Samba performance are very poor under FreeNAS (but not with NFS or
FTP).
...
But there is no
Derrick T. Woolworth wrote:
Hello all,
Sorry for cross-posting, but these issues seem relevant for lists...
Has anyone had success with SATA300 controllers with FreeBSD 6.1?
I've been
trying Promise and nVidia nForce4 and I'm not having any luck. Using
a MSI
Yes, this chipset works well f
Michael Vince wrote:
HTT was Intels best early stab to help path the way for their multi
core technologies to come into use as quickly as possible for the
masses over just the server end.
Exactly, thats why i wouldn't spend too much time bothering with HTT. It
was a transitional technology fo
On Mon, May 29, 2006 8:10 pm, Joao Barros wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am using -CURRENT here, disabling net.inet.tcp.inflight improves the
download rate by 2MB/s!
>>
> How old is that CURRENT? I believe that shouldn't happen after
Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
I get 25 to 30MB/sec between FreeBSD 6.0 and Windows XP
clients with tcp.inflight disabled and interrupt polling enabled
on a 1gb link without jumbo frames.
The various Linux distributions do about the same on this hardware -
3ware striped raid arrays, dual xeon, and 2Gb
Nash Nipples wrote:
Hi Guys,
has anyone actually managed to speed up the thing up to 10-12 MB/s
i have a good 7-9 MB/s on large files and that should be enough, but still, out of curiosity?
No, not really. The performance of samba on freebsd still sucks. I have
a gigabit link between m
David Xu wrote:
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 02:43, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hmm, with this patch mysql 4.1 seems to crash at startup. I haven't
yet had time to investigate. Is anyone else seeing this?
Kris
I only have tested mysql 4.0, I will try 4.1 later.
What about 5.0? Have any of
Sven Petai wrote:
scheduler: ULE
thr_lib socket nicequeries threads update select
thr unix0 1 100 477913724
thr unix0 10 10 647325172
thr unix-10 1 100 496920662
thr unix-10 10 10 6418
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:14PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:43:27PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new ser
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just look around the list on the continuous problems people have with
that and the nve card. I would never feel safe putting these in
production.
I would agree with nve but not
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Nilsson wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when
socket AM2 c
Martin Nilsson wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when
socket AM2 comes out.
That is an old myth: http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/
Its not an old myth. Find me a single cpu
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:43:27PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
socket is significantly different.
Its not a server/desktop thing, its a new socket that will allow A
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
socket is significantly different.
Its not a server/desktop thing, its a new socket that will allow AMD to
use DDR2 memory. It applies to both Athlons and Opterons.
_
Bill Moran wrote:
Lost me here.
Are you saying 1U units from Sun? Or does Dell have a 1U called a
"Sun"?
I am pretty-much locked into Dell - decision made by others. Actually,
I've been pretty happy with the Dell HW, but it's a shame they don't
offer AMD servers.
I'm quite sure he was re
David Gilbert wrote:
This isn't random. As I understand the issue, the Opteron HT bus
handles synchronization much faster. So for a game --- this doesn't
matter ... games don't (usually) need sync. Databases, however, live
on synchonizaton. If you're a Dell man (and already paying the Dell
ta
Steven Hartland wrote:
Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745
It will be interesting to see how Intels new CPUs (Conroe, Woodcrest,
etc) will perform. From initial gaming benchmarks, they seems to
outperform the curren
Patrick Proniewski wrote:
By the way, I understand that installing a native java on FreeBSD is
not straighforward, isn't it ? one have to go with a java in
compat_linux and then build a java for the freebsd host, is it right ?
Its very straight forward, cd /usr/ports/java/diablo-jre15 && make
Patrick Proniewski wrote:
Hello,
there is an extensive discussion here about MySQL performance on
FreeBSD compared to linux and also comparing various options on
FreeBSD side (threading lib, ...). What about Java application perfs
(tomcat and other) ? Are there any benches around comparing mu
Michael Vince wrote:
Joao Barros wrote:
No real difference here too...
I started a thread on that subject not long ago and following Robert's
tip setting net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0 yielded better results.
--
Joao Barros
___
With the new TCP/IP
Joao Barros wrote:
On 1/26/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Murphey wrote:
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
transfers still a
Rich Murphey wrote:
I'm curious whether Robert's patch might have an
effect on samba3 performance as well.
No real difference here, tried ACPI-fast, i8254, and TSC. :( My
transfers still average at 10MB/s (although it did peak at 20MB/s once)
Which is really horrible for a em gigabit link wit
David Gilbert wrote:
"Mihai" == Mihai Tanasescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mihai> Hello, I'm running the following setup:
Mihai> Freebsd Dual Xeon 3Ghz machine (SMP enabled)
Mihai> 3 x 100 Mbits/s links (used at 80% capacity) - 3 x Intel 100
Mihai> fxp
Mihai> 1 x 1000 Gbit link
Mihai Tanasescu wrote:
The problem:
If I ping this machine or anything that is routed through it I get
response times of 10-15-30 ms and once in 30 seconds a packet is lost.
If I disable kernel.polling.enable then I get response times of 1-2-3
ms but I also get a lot of interrupts and a kerne
Robert Watson wrote:
There are a number of TCP related configuration frobs on FreeBSD. It
would be quite interesting to know how modifying each of the following
settings affects Samba performance:
net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack
net.inet.tcp.sack.enable
net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable
There has been r
Nick Evans wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:24:18 -0500
Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
systems (FreeBSD-current connected directly to Windows XP via identical
Intel Pro 1000 cards) and my only conclusion i
Arkadi Shishlov wrote:
Joao Barros wrote:
On a P4 3.06GHz with HTT enabled and ULE I get the same results.
I get a flat line at 58% looking at the bandwith in task manager on a
Windows 2003 Server while doing a cached read.
I can get up to 70% bandwith during writes.
Percentages are relative
On Mon, June 20, 2005 10:51 am, David Sze said:
>
> I'll be re-running super-smack against an InnoDB table. Any additional
> requests for configurations to test, or other tweaking suggestions?
Any chance you could compare performance on MySQL 4.0 and 4.1 while you're
at it?
_
On Thu, May 26, 2005 2:52 pm, Peter Kieser said:
> I've tried without fast forwarding, I've tried without the TCP sendspace
> as well as reducing it to 65K, I let maxusers auto tune itself and I've
> even tried uping the KVA space.
>
> I'm at a loss, what would be the ideal sysctl's/loader.conf fo
34 matches
Mail list logo
