If you think that then you are either a fool or
an old fool..
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:43:59 +0200
Subject: Re: hyper threading.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the circumstances that you have
Thats because you seem unable to grasp modern
concepts. If you think that performance criteria
of modern controllers and processors are the same
as 30 years ago, then you are incapable of commenting
on anything modern. Every controller/processor is
different and has its own advantages and
You are wrong about just about everything, I
unsubscribed because dragonfybsd is more than a year
away from being usable in a commercial
environment and memory fails when you
shock it with a heavy load. And I'm pretty sure my
email exists.
My goal is to seek intelligent life. Its a long
journey.
No, I think the biggest changes are that
1) Processor speed is rarely the key limiting factor
and
2) Memory efficiency is much less a concern.
In the old days if you weren't a very good programmer
you did something else. Today anyone can
crank out code that works (linux anyone?). And
processors
More supurb technical analysis from that wiz, Jerry. Nicely
done!
You know if you guys spent half the time debugging code
as you spend cutting down people who've found
stuff that doesn't work there might not be a reason
to complain. Too bad all of the real developers are
off scratching their heads
I guess that depends on how you define performance.
The MAX_INTS setting in the em driver essentially does
what polling does (in reducing interrupts) without the
overhead. So there is really no way that polling could
be better. With polling you have a lot of unnecessary
overhead. Setting MAX_INTS
Things have changed a bit since then, so I doubt that
proof has any relevance. All polling does , in the context
of device polling, is make networking low-priority. You are
adding latency to save CPU cycles. You could argue that
higher latency is lower performance. Interrupt hold offs
are a much
Do you know how MAX_INTS and Device Polling
work? I can tell that you don't so why are you
blabbering about how you kludged an ancient
operating system to work-around poorly designed
hardware? First of all, with original 8250 PC serial
ports, polling wouldn't have worked because there
was no
And the circumstances that you have described
have nothing to do with modern computing, so
as I said, its irrelevant.
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:03:07 +0200
Subject: Re: hyper threading.
[EMAIL
Right. Thats what I said. You'll killl your networking.
So you don't want HT or SMP on a Server. Thats
what most MP machines are used for.
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:33:36 +0200
Subject: Re: hyper
Test it yourself. I made a comment about making sure
you test before you assume that HT is helpful. I don't
feel compelled to convince you. Do what you want.
-Original Message-
From: John Pettitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Sat, 26 Mar
WRONG on all counts!
Firstly, anyone who uses their own server for lists is
a complete idiot. Are you trying to insult everyone
who has found AOL or Yahoo or Gmail to be more
convenient for not clogging their server with lists
traffic? Or do you just feel important because you
laid out the $20 for
Apparently you can't read. I didn't say you were an
idiot for running your own server. Only that you
were an idiot to use your server to download
tons of crap from lists that you don't want to
read when for free you can have it stored elsewhere.
I have a server, and a domain (several) and lots of
You know, you spout all of this wonderful theory without considering
the quality of the implementation. Everything is implementation.
And a key point that you consistently overlook is that
FreeBSD 5.x is a particularly poor implementation of SMP.
Linux and Dragonfly get 80% improvement in
Polling is simply unecessary in most cases. You could get
better performance using an em driver and setting max
ints to whatever is optimal for your system. Polling adds
latency and over head for no good reason.
As I've said before, the FreeBSD team is patently
clueless. They're grasping at
and who do you think cares what you do?
-Original Message-
From: Dev Tugnait [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:41:37 -0500
Subject: Re: A Riddle
I sticky this thread as retarded.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Apparently
I've never seen any measurements. And most of your
theories are clearly incorrect for FreeBSD. So what good
is it?
You claim to have done measurements, so what do you have
to refute it? Being a fool is a choice. Its easily turned.
The problem is when you can't get more hardware. When you
are
Hmm, I wonder if the lack of performance, or the unwanted
emails were more heaviliy weighted in the decision?
If there was any intelligent life on the list you could
counter what you call Trolls with solid techical
arguments. This reminds me of the old bsdi
list. A bunch of half-wits who are just
--- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, I wonder if the lack of performance, or the
unwanted
emails were more heavily weighted in the
decision?
If there was any intelligent life on the list you
could
counter what you call Trolls with solid technical
arguments. This
This is the kind of disinformation I have been
referring to
You'll get much better performance with 1 processor in
UP mode. I suggest you do some testing.
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:28:11
I am offerring the correct information. Turning on SMP on
an HT machine will kill the systems performance much
more than hyperthreading will gain. I told him to test.
The degradation is easily measurable.
-Original Message-
From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Yes, the theory is very nice; you've done a nice
job reading Intel's marketing garb. However if you
don't have a specific hyperthreading-aware scheduler
and particularly well-written, threaded applications,
you'll lose more than you'll gain. Since FreeBSDs
network stack isn't particularly well
Uh, thats not the correct load average to use. Use the
numbers obtained from top or systat. Those loads
will show Zero load when you're routing 100K pps.
It doesnt measure kernel load.
-Original Message-
From: Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Pettitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
You can argue the technical theory all you want, but the
measurements say otherwise.
You guys have done it once again. Baited me into firing up a
test that I already know the results of:
Setup: Bridging em0 to em1
Load: 500Kpps, 60 bytes
3.4Ghz P4 1MB Cache
FreeBSD 4.9 - Load: 38% (I put this in
When you get your machine running without a kernel
let me know. The kernel is the key to the O/S. If you
don't need networking and don't have many interrupts,
then it probably doesnt matter that much.
-Original Message-
From: John Pettitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Q: Why are FreeBSD users like Liberals?
A: They panic and start to call you names when you tell them the truth.
-Original Message-
From: Subhro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:37:12 +0530
Subject: RE: AMD64 much slower than
-Original Message-
From: Boris Spirialitious [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: A Riddle
--- Duo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q: Why are FreeBSD users like Liberals?
A: They panic and
There are 2 kinds of people in America, Jerry. The Rich
and those who complain about the Rich. The difference
here as opposed to some other countries is that which
group you belong to is a personal choice. I respect your
choice. You seem very happy in your ignorance of virtually
every subject.
If you haven't used amd64 then why are you qualified to comment
on the subject? If he's using the same settings for i386 and amd64,
then the results should be balanced. I think the point here is that
the same settings, which are probably the defaults, run a lot
slower on amd64 than i386. And I
I think that warning people that the good name of FreeBSD is being
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
Maybe you shouldn't prejudge. Its clear than no one with their
own addresses has any answers.
-Original Message-
From: Subhro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:37:12 +0530
Subject: RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD
I think the point of a list is so that someone can say oh yes, I had
problems with the
em driver in amd64 also; try card X. But instead you get a lot of
people with no real
idea trying to explain away the problem, as if there is no chance that
the amd64
implementant just plain sucks wind. If
man driver, such as 'man em' for the em driver
-Original Message-
From: Dixit, Viraj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:47:49 -0800
Subject: Network Interface Card Setup
Hi,
I have got a mismatch Duplex problem. Can someone confirm these
commands
The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what
they're 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
The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what
they're 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
.x Opteron Question
:em1897,
: I'm curious how you are testing. In my testing, the 5.4 pre IP
:stack performed very well. I was able to get 100% more throughput
:than Linux (2.6.10 FC3) under heavy load on the exact same hardware.
:I was actually surprised at the difference because I have been
:45:44 -0700
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
:em1897,
: I'm curious how you are testing. In my testing, the 5.4 pre IP
:stack performed very well. I was able to get 100% more throughput
:than Linux (2.6.10 FC3) under heavy load on the exact same
hardware.
:I was actually surprised
:Boris,
: I would agree that my initial impression of 5.3 was that it was slow
:compared to 4.x. After some tuning, I now have 5.3 running at an
:acceptable performance level. You may want to start testing the newer
:versions of 5 current. I have noticed improved performance on my test
-Original Message-
From: Nick Pavlica [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:45:44 -0700
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
:em1897,
: I'm curious how you are testing. In my testing, the 5.4 pre IP
39 matches
Mail list logo
