Hello!
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
%Sys %Intr %Idl
RELENG_6 + rl0 45 40 15
RELENG_6 + fxp0 45 35 20
%Sys %Intr %Idl "time md5 -t" wall clock time
RELENG_6 + rl0 34 24 42 1:43
RELENG_6 + fxp0 30 20 50 1:40
is caused by just these:
options INVARIANTS
options INVARIANT_SUPPORT
So what is the overall status? I am not clear what your results are.
Results for RELENG_6+rl0 are
%Sys %Intr %Idl
34 24 42
without INVARIANTS, and
%Sys %Intr %Idl
45 40 15
with them. Other options like QUOTA and "makeoptions
CONF_CFLAGS=-fno-builtin" make almost no difference. So, under my test
conditions, the best % of idle CPU time under RELENG_6 is 42%, while under
RELENG_4 we had
%Sys %Intr %Idl
14 14 72
under the same conditions (and with INVARIANTS!) ;(
available for application under RELENG_5/6 than under RELENG_4 (under
identical load pattern). I ran "time md5 -t" several (3-5 times) just to
confirm my assumptions, and results didn't vary more than 3%. So I suppose
that ministat isn't necessary in my tests.
Perhaps not when the difference is large, but you need to be very
careful when differences are below ~10%, because it's easy to make
incorrect conclusions.
I agree with you. I would make more measurements if my aim was to determine
which branch between RELENG_5 and _6 to use. But as these results are close
enough, and RELENG_6 is superiour regarding new features (and often
stability), IMHO there's no point in using RELENG_5 at all. I'm just trying
to understand why performance of RELENG_6 is worse than in RELENG_4 _that
much_, and whether this sad situation can be improved somehow.
Kris
Sincerely, Dmitry
--
Atlantis ISP, System Administrator
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
