Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ]
stheg olloydson wrote: Glad to be of help. Raidframe had been ported to FBSD 5.x, but it was removed because kernel changes broke it, and no one volunteered to fix it. I think gvinum replaced vinum in 5.3 for the same reason. I don't use software raid, so I don't really know. It's a pity that raidframe didn't make it into FreeBSD. It seems to be faster than (g)vinum at least for me. I tried gvinum because i wanted to look on gdbe but it didn't seem to be ripe. It lacked several options from "gvinum help" and if used not carefully enough it would crash the whole machine. On the other hand vinum seems to be very stable but hasn't GEOM support. But NBSD 2.0 is very nice. A company that I do consulting for has just chosen it as the OS for a new embedded product in their pipeline. I've been toying with the idea of idea of web-enabling my toaster by hooking up temperature sensors and a camera, so web surfers could make toast at my house. Good idea, maybe i should install NetBSD in my hair-drier and have the web crowd decide wether my hairs will be dry or wet. :) I was going to use a 8051 chip and write the code, but maybe I'll use NBSD on an embedded board. (Someday, I may want to add the sprinkler system, pool pump,) A fully controllable house is very nice but it either means a lot of work or a lot of money. It's also quite difficult to "upgrade" an old house because all the walls and floors would have to be ripped open in order to install cabling. P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from Windows boxes? Theories? In my case i'm using windows because it's pre-installed on the laptop i use and i never had luck with *bsd/linux on the desktop (and especially laptops). This was meant as a humorous question because of certain Windows users' not well-reasoned or -argued posts on this very topic in the last few days. Trolls are really a plague but i think it's quite calm on this list in regard to some Internet panels. Anyway i hope nobody thought that i'm trolling. :) Different tools for different jobs. Although, in the thread you referenced, you said you were having major SMP problems with NBSD. I hope you get those sorted. Those, I would think, are worse than any network and vinum performance problems. In any event you may wish to check back when 5.4 is released. (No release schedule yet.) There are some more points that made me stick with NetBSD and maybe i'll want to come back to FreeBSD when 5.4 is out. However i think that development for NetBSD will make advances too. What SMP, NetBSD and FreeBSD concerns i have to say that i know much more now than when i wrote to the NetBSD mailing list. I made some assumptions back then which proved to be wrong. Somebody gave me the hint to have a look at "sysstat vmstat" and i saw that the interrupts grew to an high number on disk i/o. It went a little bit smoother without SMP. I couldn't remember that FreeBSD did so, thus i assumed that it performed better. Checking it again exposed that there was almost the same interrupt behaviour. My apologies for writing emails with unevaluated statements. You're welcome and see you on the 'net. stheg Best Wishes, Jochen Keil ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ]
it was said > Just a few day ago i installed NetBSD 2.0 to make a final stroke to > my decision as i got this computer on the 16. of november. Main > advantage in my opinion is that raidframe performs better than vinum (at least > with my setup and with the tests i performed). There are some other > topics but mainly subjective and not the matter of this email. I > guess i'm going to stick with it, developers and time will do the rest for me. :) > But what's most important is that your mail gave me the confidence > that my hardware isn't faulty. It's also very nice that you shed some > light on the that whole network subject. Glad to be of help. Raidframe had been ported to FBSD 5.x, but it was removed because kernel changes broke it, and no one volunteered to fix it. I think gvinum replaced vinum in 5.3 for the same reason. I don't use software raid, so I don't really know. But NBSD 2.0 is very nice. A company that I do consulting for has just chosen it as the OS for a new embedded product in their pipeline. I've been toying with the idea of idea of web-enabling my toaster by hooking up temperature sensors and a camera, so web surfers could make toast at my house. I was going to use a 8051 chip and write the code, but maybe I'll use NBSD on an embedded board. (Someday, I may want to add the sprinkler system, pool pump,) >> P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD >>performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from >> Windows boxes? Theories? > > In my case i'm using windows because it's pre-installed on the laptop > i use and i never had luck with *bsd/linux on the desktop (and > especially laptops). This was meant as a humorous question because of certain Windows users' not well-reasoned or -argued posts on this very topic in the last few days. > Well, enough said. (Maybe i'll make some space free for FreeBSD 5.3 > to give a try but i'm not to optimistic that it will suffice my needs) Different tools for different jobs. Although, in the thread you referenced, you said you were having major SMP problems with NBSD. I hope you get those sorted. Those, I would think, are worse than any network and vinum performance problems. In any event you may wish to check back when 5.4 is released. (No release schedule yet.) > Thanks for your kind assistance and best regards, >Jochen Keil You're welcome and see you on the 'net. stheg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ]
stheg olloydson wrote: (Sorry about the multiple posts. I somehow sent this without a subject line before.) Never mind. Nobody's perfect. ;) To sum up your problem, you tested "FreeBSD 5.3, NetBSD 2.0, FreeBSD 4.11 and an elder version of the Knoppix (Linux 2.4) CD" and found that FreeBSD 4.11RC2 had the best ping responses from that group. What you want to know is why FBSD 5.3 doesn't respond as well as 4.11RC2. Is this correct? You got me right. Assuming that it is, the answer is that 5.3 is the first stable release of the 5.x branch. One of the 5.x branch's main purposes is to make FBSD much more scalable in terms SMP support. Doing this requires removing the Giant lock. It had been hoped that the removal process would be finished in time for 5.3. Unfortunately, as often happens in a volunteer project delays occurred for various reasons, that was not the case. The incomplete removal meant that not all subsystems could be optimized properly. One of those subsystems is networking. This is not as bad as it sounds because while 5.3's network performance is not as good as 4.11RC2, it is no worse that of NBSD 2.0 or any Linux distro. Also, the optimization has already begun on networking and 5.4 should be _at least_ as good as 4.x. Also, as you saw yourself, using an SMP kernel in FBSD 5.3 doesn't cause a performance hit in networking but it does in NBSD 2.0. So your choices seem to be use 4.11RC2 (full release due shortly) to get the best network response, 5.3 to get as good performance as NBSD 2.0 but with SMP, or use NBSD 2.0 to get as good perfomance as 5.3 but without SMP. Of course, you can wait until NBSD (your prefered OS) performs as well as FBSD, but that may be a lnng time.:) Just a few day ago i installed NetBSD 2.0 to make a final stroke to my decision as i got this computer on the 16. of november. Main advantage in my opinion is that raidframe performs better than vinum (at least with my setup and with the tests i performed). There are some other topics but mainly subjective and not the matter of this email. I guess i'm going to stick with it, developers and time will do the rest for me. :) But what's most important is that your mail gave me the confidence that my hardware isn't faulty. It's also very nice that you shed some light on the that whole network subject. P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from Windows boxes? Theories? In my case i'm using windows because it's pre-installed on the laptop i use and i never had luck with *bsd/linux on the desktop (and especially laptops). Did you ever recognize the difference between Firefox/Mozilla Browser for Windows and the versions für FreeBSD? Even only compiled with GTK1 Firefox/Mozilla will load the cpu up to 100% when there are some tabs (>10-20) opened. I know that this is a matter of unsupported graphic cards with X.org (that whole proprietary stuff annoys me a lot..) but i don't want to suffer for my beliefs. If there only would be ratpoison or xfce for windows.. Well, enough said. (Maybe i'll make some space free for FreeBSD 5.3 to give a try but i'm not to optimistic that it will suffice my needs) Thanks for your kind assistance and best regards, Jochen Keil ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ...
In a message dated 1/16/05 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >stheg > >P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD >performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from >Windows boxes? Theories? Because performance is a server issue and what you use for a server has little to do with what you use on your desktop. Most people that don't have a religious repulsion with Microsoft use Windows on the desktop. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ...
In a message dated 1/16/05 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>Now i am really puzzled because i cannot understand why 4.x behaves >>relatively good compared to 5.x on this specific issue. Is there a >>good explanation or does one have to investigate this further? >Also, as you saw yourself, using an SMP kernel in FBSD 5.3 doesn't >cause a performance hit in networking but it does in NBSD 2.0. >So your choices seem to be use 4.11RC2 (full release due shortly) to >get the best network response, 5.3 to get as good performance as NBSD >2.0 but with SMP, or use NBSD 2.0 to get as good perfomance as 5.3 but >without SMP. Of course, you can wait until NBSD (your prefered OS) >performs as well as FBSD, but that may be a lnng time.:) Of course you won't be able to run 4.x on the latest hardware, because they've stopped supporting such things. What "puzzles" me is that they call 5.x the "production version", even though they seem to know its not there yet. So (sadly), you can't run the fastest version on the fastest hardware. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ]
stheg wrote: P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from Windows boxes? Theories? Cuz if you have freebsd on your desktop, you don't give a damn about its performance. It's just too great. And don't look at me, I'm still waiting for SPDIF support in ALC658 driver to dump my last running Windows for good :-) Very best wishes, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: different behaviour between 4.x and 5.x (ping response/disk io) [was Re: ]
(Sorry about the multiple posts. I somehow sent this without a subject line before.) it was said: >Now i am really puzzled because i cannot understand why 4.x behaves >relatively good compared to 5.x on this specific issue. Is there a >good explanation or does one have to investigate this further? Hello, First, I do not speak for anyone but myself. Therefore, any information this post contains is based solely on my understanding of that information and is only as accurate as that understanding is correct. To sum up your problem, you tested "FreeBSD 5.3, NetBSD 2.0, FreeBSD 4.11 and an elder version of the Knoppix (Linux 2.4) CD" and found that FreeBSD 4.11RC2 had the best ping responses from that group. What you want to know is why FBSD 5.3 doesn't respond as well as 4.11RC2. Is this correct? Assuming that it is, the answer is that 5.3 is the first stable release of the 5.x branch. One of the 5.x branch's main purposes is to make FBSD much more scalable in terms SMP support. Doing this requires removing the Giant lock. It had been hoped that the removal process would be finished in time for 5.3. Unfortunately, as often happens in a volunteer project delays occurred for various reasons, that was not the case. The incomplete removal meant that not all subsystems could be optimized properly. One of those subsystems is networking. This is not as bad as it sounds because while 5.3's network performance is not as good as 4.11RC2, it is no worse that of NBSD 2.0 or any Linux distro. Also, the optimization has already begun on networking and 5.4 should be _at least_ as good as 4.x. Also, as you saw yourself, using an SMP kernel in FBSD 5.3 doesn't cause a performance hit in networking but it does in NBSD 2.0. So your choices seem to be use 4.11RC2 (full release due shortly) to get the best network response, 5.3 to get as good performance as NBSD 2.0 but with SMP, or use NBSD 2.0 to get as good perfomance as 5.3 but without SMP. Of course, you can wait until NBSD (your prefered OS) performs as well as FBSD, but that may be a lnng time.:) HTH, stheg P.S. (to the list in general) Why do all of the questions about FBSD performance, especially 4.x vs 5.x, come from people posting from Windows boxes? Theories? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
