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 @rxxxxxx
(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 of 6 physical cores each @3.47GHz
(Intel X5690); SMT is enabled (so the scheduler sees hw.ncpu ==
24). The memory on the machines was recently increased from 6GB
to 96GB.
I am trying to set up a replacement host environment on my test machine;
the current environment there is FreeBSD/amd64 8.4-STABLE @r255966; this
environment achieves a couple of objectives:
* It has no local patches.
* The known problems (e.g., with mfiutil failing to report battery
status accurately) are believed to be addressed appropriately.
However: when I do comparison software builds, the new environment is
taking about 12% longer to perform the same work (comparing against a
fair sample of the deployed machines):
So, the test machine is exactly the same as the old machines? Does the
hardware upgrade coincide with 8.4-STABLE upgrade?
At a guess, you also might be hitting a problem with either NUMA (which
would mean the difference you encountered is pretty much random,
depending on how the memory from your processes was allocated), or a
generic scheduler issue (IIRC, FreeBSD 9 series was found to be much
more scalable for > 16 CPUs).
Just a thought - you *could* set up an 8-STABLE jail in a 9-STABLE
environment if you need the 8-STABLE libraries for your software.
OR,
take the new kernel and use it to boot the old system
then compare times.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
