tainted by the current band of clowns is very productive. Its more like
a religion now; I've never seen so many people in total denial that their
beliefs are completely wrong. A lot of people are wasting a lot of time
because of this propaganda. The cluelessness in the performance
list is a good indication.
-----Original Message----- From: jason henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:57:58 -0500 Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:� �
>�doing. Check out some of the threads on >> performance testing. They tune little pieces here >> and there, and break 10 other things in the process. >> Matt Dillon "determined" that 10,000 ints/second >> was "optimal". Of course if you're passing 10Kpps >> that means you get an interrupt for every >> packet. >> >> They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. >> >�The answer, Boris, is that the "team" has no idea what >> they're
You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was >unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion > you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they > ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp > based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its > own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to > leave it alone. > He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system > load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on > a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is > just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his > system or settings. > Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a > single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a > third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says > i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work > around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would > be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? > > So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I > couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that > would be wrong. _______________________________________________ >�
--------- Previous Message�Instead of minimizing the load,�
�
No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS parameter for the em�
driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. >
they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, whichis > not how you tune�
performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get >695Kb/s with 60% load,�
which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so >they were hitting the�
wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was just a stupid test in�
general.�
� I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying.� �
�thing. > I take an i386 disk�
I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same
and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or4 > required differences,�
and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your >buildworld runs faster,�
but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap,so > you likely have a�
slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a bunch of swell�But > its not going to make�
guys swearing that one thing is faster than another.�
�
I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away.
things any better.��
Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD was bad and left us to duke it out.�
�
_______________________________________________�"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"�
[email protected] mailing list�
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions�
To unsubscribe, send any mail to >
�So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too? �
I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?�
�
I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright. �
Check this out:�
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html�
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice�
�
Inparticular:�
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html�
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html�
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
