Re: [CentOS] Performance issues/difference of two servers running same task (one is quicker)
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:46:19AM -0700, Gordon Messmer (gordon.mess...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 7/3/19 11:43 PM, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote: > > - How can it be that the DELL takes so much longer alltough on the far > > better hardware? > It looks like the DIY system has a CPU that's nearly twice as fast > as the Dell's. The additional CPU in the Dell will run more tasks > concurrently, but it won't make a single process faster. > > You might also think that the SSD RAID would make the Dell faster, > but that will only be true if the process that you're testing > performs a significant amount of IO. If your DB operations are > happening mostly in memory (that is, if the data is cached), then > the faster CPU will be the primary determining factor. I made the buffer pool size on the DELL double the size of the DIY when I started trying to figure out why the speed difference. > > The other thing that you left out of your description is the amount > of data on each server. If your live server has a lot of data in > its DB and the dev system has a small dataset suitable for testing, > then generally you'd expect that the dev system's data is more > likely to live in cache and avoid disk IO, and processing the > smaller set will also take less CPU time. Most of the DB's are small as they contain websites. The biggest DB is the Online Training DB, which are the same on both machine as I constantly copy the data from the life server to the DIY. Very good analysis indeed. Makes total sense. -- Jobst Schmalenbach Road to hell is paved with NAND gates. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Performance issues/difference of two servers running same task (one is quicker)
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 09:07:35AM +0200, Simon Matter via CentOS (centos@centos.org) wrote: > > Hi > > Two ideas: > > a) the DELL maybe faster over all but if I'm right single core speed is > slower than on DEV machine. Yes, but since BOTH have "other" things to do at the same time the sheer number of CPUs of the DELL should help > > b) how do the LSI/SSD perform compared to the MDADM/RAID0 on the DEV > server? I'm not sure the DELL is a clear winner here. See my answer to the disk task test to another email. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Performance issues/difference of two servers running same task (one is quicker)
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 09:39:18AM +0200, Roberto Ragusa (m...@robertoragusa.it) wrote: > On 7/4/19 8:43 AM, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote: > >Clearly the development server is hardware wise way below the specs of the > >Dell but > >software wise they are identical (they get upgraded at the same time). > As a first step, you have to test subsystems one by one. Thank you for the tips. Here are the results (DELL is faster overall): > time dd 2>/dev/null if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1 count=100 [DIY ~] #>time dd 2>/dev/null if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1 count=100 real0m1.931s user0m1.022s sys 0m0.896s [DELL ~] #>time dd 2>/dev/null if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1 count=100 real0m1.308s user0m0.389s sys 0m0.919s Dell faster overall > cd /a/directory/on/the/filesystem/you/want/to/test > time bash -c "for((i=0;i<1000;i++)); do dd 2>/dev/null if=/dev/zero of=test > bs=1 count=1 conv=fsync;done" > rm test [DIY /mnt] #>time bash -c "for((i=0;i<1000;i++)); do dd 2>/dev/null if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1 count=1 conv=fsync;done" real1m12.944s user0m1.604s sys 0m2.595s [DELL /mnt] #>time bash -c "for((i=0;i<1000;i++)); do dd 2>/dev/null if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1 count=1 conv=fsync;done" real0m2.270s user0m0.509s sys 0m1.475s Expected the DIY to be slower here, it's running MDADM RAID1 on Seagete Spinners compared to LSI RAID1 SSD The result shows the DELL overall is faster, back to the drawing board after I followed all the other hints in this thread. Jobst ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Have you run "tuned-adm profile throughput-performance" ?
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 11:48:45AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 7/4/19 10:18 PM, Steven Tardy wrote: > >I would also look at power settings in the BIOS and c-state settings in the > >BIOS and OS as disabling c-states (often enabled by default to meet > >green/energy star compliance) can make a noticeable performance difference. > > > I'd be surprised if it did, but now that you mention it, I think > that we should probably mention more often that CentOS's default > performance policy is power-saving, which will cut maximum > performance in half. Every physical system running CentOS should > have run "tuned-adm profile throughput-performance". > > http://jperrin.org/centos/boosting-centos-server-performance/ Not for my (admittedly dog-like) AcerAspire One netbook, dual core 1.6 GHz Aton with a whopping 2 gigs of RAM. it would run for a little while, pause for a minute or two while the hard drive went chunka-chunka, then eventually come back to life. not pleasant. -- Fred Smith -- fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us - But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. --- Romans 5:8 (niv) -- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS-docs] Request to edit https://wiki.centos.org/Cloud/AWS
The list of non-AWS Marketplace AMIs in https://wiki.centos.org/Cloud/AWS is extremely outdated. I would like to request either edit permissions (or, more likely because you don't know me) an active editor of the page who would not mind edits being submitted via email. Username: JeffreyBachtel Location: Cloud/AWS Thanks and regards, Jeff ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] Have you run "tuned-adm profile throughput-performance" ?
On 7/5/19 11:48 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 7/4/19 10:18 PM, Steven Tardy wrote: I would also look at power settings in the BIOS and c-state settings in the BIOS and OS as disabling c-states (often enabled by default to meet green/energy star compliance) can make a noticeable performance difference. I'd be surprised if it did, I take that back. Disabling power-saving in the firmware probably also disabled CPU frequency scaling, which would prevent CentOS's default policy from scaling the frequency down to its minimum, so I wouldn't be surprised. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Have you run "tuned-adm profile throughput-performance" ?
On 7/4/19 10:18 PM, Steven Tardy wrote: I would also look at power settings in the BIOS and c-state settings in the BIOS and OS as disabling c-states (often enabled by default to meet green/energy star compliance) can make a noticeable performance difference. I'd be surprised if it did, but now that you mention it, I think that we should probably mention more often that CentOS's default performance policy is power-saving, which will cut maximum performance in half. Every physical system running CentOS should have run "tuned-adm profile throughput-performance". http://jperrin.org/centos/boosting-centos-server-performance/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 173, Issue 3
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ...@centos.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
centos-announce-ow...@centos.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. CEBA-2019:1338 CentOS 7 glibc BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
2. CEBA-2019:1333 CentOS 7 libteam BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
3. CEBA-2019:1340 CentOS 7 lvm2 BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
4. CEBA-2019:1332 CentOS 7 libreswan BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
5. CEBA-2019:1336 CentOS 7 systemd BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
6. CEBA-2019:1347 CentOS 7 python-docs BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
7. CEBA-2019:1334 CentOS 7 qt BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
8. CEBA-2019:C002 CentOS 7 anaconda BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes)
--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:31:14 +
From: Johnny Hughes
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2019:1338 CentOS 7 glibc BugFix
Update
Message-ID: <20190704153114.ga15...@bstore1.rdu2.centos.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2019:1338
Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:1338
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
78909e538243066250336d5b466c97a11803e6b1b4ce47ac3ac484780294021f
glibc-2.17-260.el7_6.6.i686.rpm
8a2c3a0e08ec36caa556e5d411746e53db09903aeb79ff6ef0fdb9a0ec9b35a3
glibc-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
6eea93365edecaa070007e181724a8bd35ade15040393bc17f3907da8e120a00
glibc-common-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
41fb66384e5b906d35e6f7bf897f3ed657c199532488264d028f1ee0d6310ea7
glibc-devel-2.17-260.el7_6.6.i686.rpm
304037d6f42e7d4ae381ac116f01d73cf482049edbb025ffbbd8861dabf4f312
glibc-devel-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
67de580f4cabd7625a050f101eb42ac93de27582d04ef939ab252059d11abedb
glibc-headers-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
b67f91ceae9cbaedd450e9aa7fc79037fcaa95b40b758a73dc60a6d05c6ce40d
glibc-static-2.17-260.el7_6.6.i686.rpm
69def216085fcc622f3795a68e25a43fed92be2b5e75a8d8c1e5eefc30846414
glibc-static-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
bd9694ba9875647377bb4db30f198ec10da7346b5f7c1ed2934b9cf71ed6722c
glibc-utils-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
9912d9d13722c7fd9cf62a4b1533347dafc2d12cb75d46a58db81bd1b6330b71
nscd-2.17-260.el7_6.6.x86_64.rpm
Source:
6bc5269b718e73692feed026fca0590d068e2616c674a0cf71a4896688c6a5e8
glibc-2.17-260.el7_6.6.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS
--
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:31:37 +
From: Johnny Hughes
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2019:1333 CentOS 7 libteam BugFix
Update
Message-ID: <20190704153137.ga15...@bstore1.rdu2.centos.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2019:1333
Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:1333
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
25a07b5672032eb9176a786ca10c62ca0abb5e1b35ca0944b02889c08aa74d9e
libteam-1.27-6.el7_6.1.i686.rpm
b5254755dc4fb7c223b0725b3a8aa726d7fab64405d8620422ca8ff823087162
libteam-1.27-6.el7_6.1.x86_64.rpm
ca5381965f26f7bbf8850b367377755481a3f13e37d96a42e6718967db003ab9
libteam-devel-1.27-6.el7_6.1.i686.rpm
70b0498347d6fc5130f4b219d1ea4187ed604ffc4f16a4be16a4aa839151b17f
libteam-devel-1.27-6.el7_6.1.x86_64.rpm
2679d2ee760b9c3ea2cfce36197f25ba0b9c5b793fe6d3786970539ff63097a8
libteam-doc-1.27-6.el7_6.1.x86_64.rpm
f6b1a0a2652bd2a8e594bb69105a96780a0e795074973e439077128aaba9963a
python-libteam-1.27-6.el7_6.1.x86_64.rpm
1170ecc08e66d84cc87b007d8011cc42b7eefa7e825d9574b725f9a3a07453ca
teamd-1.27-6.el7_6.1.i686.rpm
e5560d8713ed06a67f6f9c57c3256dfbbac75fe527174074ef4a389d5e38c170
teamd-1.27-6.el7_6.1.x86_64.rpm
d91bdcf8a71a52884c77c1bf7e5eda68e94eb8fce1f1f232738ecaeb596e6466
teamd-devel-1.27-6.el7_6.1.i686.rpm
91b17095e9302b9d7fdce2cef42420e2dea5b48074aa168083a8d5821d465201
teamd-devel-1.27-6.el7_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
b727c663ea025209172a563334f9b898e46447fa8204d1a0a4074786c253194e
libteam-1.27-6.el7_6.1.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS
--
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:32:31 +
From: Johnny Hughes
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2019:1340 CentOS 7 lvm2 BugFix Update
