On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of
> Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections.
> FreeBSD is the worst in this test.
>
> https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/
s not proposed an alternative.
can i test this?
> -Kip
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:27:30PM +0200, K. Macy wrote:
> >
> >> Known problem. There is an open disagreement about how to improve the
>
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:27:30PM +0200, K. Macy wrote:
> Known problem. There is an open disagreement about how to improve the
> granularity of locking in pmap.
split locking to process-specific information and global information?
use lock-free lists (i see TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL in pmap_enter)?
so
I treid make -j 30 build{world,kernel} (latest -CURRENT) on 24-core machine and
see poor
scalability of pmap/mtx -- more then 50% cpu spend on system time.
pmcstat:
@ CPU_CLK_UNHALTED_CORE [194841 samples]
42.65% [83102]_mtx_lock_sleep @ /boot/kernel/kernel
40.97% [34051] pmap_enter
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:46:29PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:15:01PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> >
> > > >> Also in the past ENOBUF
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:04:36AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> > I do some more test and build kernel with KTR.
> > Now I don't think that inetrrupt overhead on FreeBSD weight: I try
> > polling and don't see
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:15:01PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
>
> > >> Also in the past ENOBUF was not handled properly in linux.
> > >>
> > >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/Avoidi
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> >> Also in the past ENOBUF was not handled properly in linux.
> >>
> >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/AvoidingLinuxisms - Do not rely on Linux-specific
> >> socket behaviour. In particular, default socket buffer sizes are different
> >
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:07:51PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> > I do some more test and build kernel with KTR.
> > Now I don't think that inetrrupt overhead on FreeBSD weight: I try
> > polling and don't see any difference.
> >
> > I see many reported by netperf send errors. I found this
> >
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 07:52:11AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> there are profiling tools that you may decide to run.
> >
> > What tools I can use on amd64?
> >
> > I boot kernel configured with 'config -p'.
> > Most time in spinlock_exit and acpi_cpu_c1.
>
> Normal profiling works poorly (I se
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:54:11PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > And I see drammaticaly less number of context switches in linux stats
> > (by dstat).
>
> FreeBSD uses ithreds for most interrupts, so of course it does many
> more context switches (at least 2 per interrupt). This doesn't make
> m
't meaning.
> -Robby
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 07:52:11AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > > >> there are of course several possible answers, including:
> > > >>
> >
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:54:11PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> So FreeBSD has about 18% more network overhead (absolute: 65-47), or
> >> about 38% more network overhead (relative: (65-47)/47). Not too
> >> surprising -- the context switches alone might cost that.
> >
> > For only 14K vs 56K in
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 02:43:07PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 07:52:11AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> To see how much CPU is actually available, run something else and see ho
al result of this, or at
> least similar things, since spinlock_enter masks all interrupts (except
> in my version of course). Linux doesn't have fast interrupts in the
> same way that FreeBSD does, but at least in old versions almost all of
> its interrupts masked other inter
12800 act
tps 0 12732 inact
MB/s 0.00 104 cache
%busy 0440208 free
11552 buf
> On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Slawa Olhovche
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 07:44:57PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> >> there are profiling tools that you may decide to run.
> >
> > What tools I can use on amd64?
>
> Look at this document -
> http://software.intel.com/sites/oss/pdfs/profiling_debugging_freebsd_kernel_321772.pdf
> It contains br
may decide to run.
What tools I can use on amd64?
I boot kernel configured with 'config -p'.
Most time in spinlock_exit and acpi_cpu_c1.
> > On Jan 28, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wro
erhead.
Linux: overhead 7% for 56K int/s
FreeBSD: overhead 59% for 14K int/s
For processing 1/4 interrupts FreeBSD need 8x CPU.
> P.S. - /usr/src/tools/tools/netrate/netblast - we have tested little more
> expensive card - em/igb and bce.
>
> On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Slawa Olhovch
I test network performance and found some strange result -- on the
same hardware Linux more then 10x used CPU resources for interrupt
processing.
FreeBSD system utilise 70% CPU (32% idle, 59% interrupt, 9% sys) and
network card generate 14K-18K interrupt per second.
Linux system utilise 20% CPU (
20 matches
Mail list logo
