Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-12-24 Thread Anton Yuzhaninov
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:57:54, David Wolfskill wrote: DW> The only hardware upgrade was to increase RAM from 6GB to 96GB, DW> which was done for all of the machines being discussed. FYI: RAM size increase can cause performance regression, probably due to decreased CPU TLB cache hit rate. _

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-10 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hi David, How about just picking a revision of stable/8 half way between the good and not good version, then re-test? It'd help to narrow down the range of commits that could've caused problems. -adrian ___ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing lis

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-10 Thread David Wolfskill
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:02:47PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 07/10/2013 19:28, David Wolfskill wrote:> At work, we have a bunch of > machines that developers use to build some > > software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxx > > (with a few local patches, which have s

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-10 Thread Julian Elischer
On 10/10/13 10:02 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: On 07/10/2013 19:28, David Wolfskill wrote:> At work, we have a bunch of machines that developers use to build some software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxx (with a few local patches, which have since been committed to stable

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-10 Thread Ivan Voras
On 07/10/2013 19:28, David Wolfskill wrote:> At work, we have a bunch of machines that developers use to build some > software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxx > (with a few local patches, which have since been committed to stable/8), > and the software is built within

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-07 Thread David Wolfskill
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:19:38PM +0200, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > ... > > In examining the CPU utilization graphs, the CPU generally looks > > about 5% busy for the first 15 minutes; this would be bmake determining > > dependency graphs, I expect. > > Is that one process using 100% of one core,

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-07 Thread Erik Cederstrand
Den 07/10/2013 kl. 19.28 skrev David Wolfskill : > In examining the CPU utilization graphs, the CPU generally looks > about 5% busy for the first 15 minutes; this would be bmake determining > dependency graphs, I expect. Is that one process using 100% of one core, or many processes using 5% tota

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-07 Thread David Wolfskill
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:32:57AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Oct 7, 2013 1:28 PM, "David Wolfskill" wrote: > > > > At work, we have a bunch of machines that developers use to build some > > software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxx > > (with a few local patches,

Re: Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-07 Thread Adrian Chadd
On Oct 7, 2013 1:28 PM, "David Wolfskill" wrote: > > At work, we have a bunch of machines that developers use to build some > software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxx > (with a few local patches, which have since been committed to stable/8), > and the software is bui

Apparent performance regression 8.3@ -> 8.4@r255966?

2013-10-07 Thread David Wolfskill
At work, we have a bunch of machines that developers use to build some software. The machines presently run FreeBSD/amd64 8.3-STABLE @rxx (with a few local patches, which have since been committed to stable/8), and the software is built within a 32-bit jail. The hardware includes 2 packages o