Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/9/04 3:26:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that it also took quite a bit a beating to get them to admit that 1) They dont know the answer to the Subject or 2) Yahoo runs something quite different than what is available generally since they've substantially modified it. No, it is just I would be surprised if they didn't. Yahoo like any large company almost certainly has patentable ideas and a crew of lawyers reviewing everything. I would also expect they have a patent portfolio. Otherwise nothing would prevent some competitor ripping off their ideas and setting up a duplicate yahoo website. I would guess - since it is usual for this in most large companies - that some of these ideas are implemented in the FreeBSD they run. I don't work at Yahoo so I can freely speculate. And my speculations are founded on what is normal and usual for most larger companies. Nobody that works at Yahoo and actually knows the truth would be able to even speak hypothetically about what runs at Yahoo, as they would almost certaily be under an NDA. (something that is also normal and usual for most large companies) Ted - I don't see why Yahoo, or any other large company for that matter, would need or want to substantially modify the OS proper, as its a big win to *not* modify it so that you can run on whatever is the latest and greatest with minimal effort, you are certainly entitled to you opinion. Of course my point was that IF in fact you are right, and frankly I couldn't care less if you are or not, then the FreeBSD clan shouldn't be touting Yahoo as using freeBSD, any more than Ford can claim that some NASCAR driver drives a Mustang, if its been modified enough so that what they use is a completely different animal. If what Yahoo uses is based on FreeBSD, thats much different that using what everyone else does. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
OK, first of all this thread is not worthwhile to people in this forum. I'm sorry for having initially added to the noise, but I do want to try to salvage something useful from this. If your request is sincere, then please hear me out. On Friday 08 October 2004 07:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/8/04 2:25:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. Why don't you download and install the latest 5.3 beta and test it? This is the only way to test 5.3, as there is no release yet. If you refuse to test it due to its beta status, then you should probably reconsider your challenges until 5.3 is stable and you can test it for yourself. If this is the case, then all you're doing now is making noise ... and, yes, trolling. - I haven't made any challanges. My point was that there are a lot of people making claims they have no ability to substantiate. And obviously I am correct. There is a major point here that you seem to miss. One of the beauties of open source is the fact that it's available for you to test, read the code, hack, patch, fold, spindle and mutilate. If you expect people to take your counterclaims seriously, then you need to do some testing of your own. If you have a point to make, then back it up with data. If you cannot do this, then don't expect people to take you seriously, especially in a forum which is meant to be for technical help. The way you have approached this subject is not constructive. We have not learned anything from this exchange. However, we may have if you had meant for your comments to be constructive. I don't think you did. But if you want, I'd be more than happy to see your comparisons if you're willing to deal with this in a way which would benefit all parties concerned, by testing both systems, as thoroughly as you want. I'm quite interested in how the two systems size up. The more people that test it, the better. A guess a troll is anyone who questiong the powers that be. Must be a bunch of communists running the show here. That's ridiculous and it's not necessary. - jt ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of NetAdmin Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? dang, how long is this thread gonna go on? As long as you keep posting to it. Is it that important? Obviously to you it is or you wouldn't have posted. Silence speaks volumes. And learn to trim your attribution list, please. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/9/04 1:15:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: dang, how long is this thread gonna go on? Is it that important? I see a lot of good questions and equally good answers on this list, but I think this particular thread is starting to stoop beneath us all... Do you really read every thread? There are 100s of threads on here, many of them of no use, so why do you read them if you're not curious about it? It seems the most important question one could ask about FreeBSD is whether you should run 4.x or 5.x, and they always tell you to run 5.x because it suits the needs of Windbag River for guinea pigs. As long as you know you're a guinea pig, then you have your answer. I thought it was worth noting for the masses who unwittingly believe that a higher number release means better performance by default. Note that it also took quite a bit a beating to get them to admit that 1) They dont know the answer to the Subject or 2) Yahoo runs something quite different than what is available generally since they've substantially modified it. I yield the floor to the fat man in the toupee. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/9/04 12:56:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of OUR team's arsenal. And it's not just this sentence although this is one of the most blatent. You are using verbage and terminology that clearly sets you in opposition to the rest of us, users and developers, of FreeBSD. If this isn't a challenge you don't know the meaning of the word. Maybe you think its a challenge because the words have teeth? Who is the rest of us in your estimation? Those under the thumb of wind river, or those of us trying to run small business who would prefer not to be bamboozled into using something new because you need free testers for your code? I monitored this list for months,and I never once heard any one of you tell anyone that 4.x was a better choice if running your business with the most efficient current solution was your goal. You don't care about the freeBSD community, you care about your own agenda, whoever you are. If you're not going to be honest with the community, then there's going to be a separation of you with the agenda and us with the need for honest answers to our questions so that we can run our businesses effectively. I love freeBSD. I have the skills to get my own answers as to the suitability of one OS or one version to another. Most people on this list don't. So don't steer them to 5.x when you know its not yet ready for prime time, because people rely on you to give good, honest answers in order to earn a living. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? In a message dated 10/9/04 12:56:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of OUR team's arsenal. And it's not just this sentence although this is one of the most blatent. You are using verbage and terminology that clearly sets you in opposition to the rest of us, users and developers, of FreeBSD. If this isn't a challenge you don't know the meaning of the word. Maybe you think its a challenge because the words have teeth? Who is the rest of us in your estimation? Anyone who uses FreeBSD. Anyone who contributes to FreeBSD obviously has to use it. And, even people standing on the street and throwing rocks - if they are doing it with knowledge, such as pointing out SPECIFIC issues - they are contributing to FreeBSD. Someone standing out on the sidewalk who has never run a FreeBSD release and knows little about it, who wants to throw rocks, he's not contributing. Those under the thumb of wind river, or those of us trying to run small business who would prefer not to be bamboozled into using something new because you need free testers for your code? Nobody is forcing anyone to use any new FreeBSD. You can use FreeBSD 3.X or FreeBSD 2.X or even FreeBSD 1.X if you can find it, that is. Many people have CD's of the old FreeBSD versions who will make them available on the Internet. You want to run FreeBSD 1.1.5.1? I have it on a QIC tape somewhere if you really want to. I monitored this list for months,and I never once heard any one of you tell anyone that 4.x was a better choice if running your business with the most efficient current solution was your goal. Why should we? The instructions that tell you to use FreeBSD 4.X are right in the release itself! Haven't you seen this web page: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.2.1R/early-adopter.html I quote: the Release Engineering Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] specifically discourages users from updating from older FreeBSD releases to 5.2.1-RELEASE These instructions are in every FreeBSD 5.X CD. Why are you blaming us if you cannot be bothered to read instructions? You don't care about the freeBSD community, you care about your own agenda, whoever you are. If you're not going to be honest with the community, then there's going to be a separation of you with the agenda and us with the need for honest answers to our questions so that we can run our businesses effectively. OK so now your trying to say there's an us out there on the sidewalk throwing rocks with you. I got news for you, there ain't no us out there. There's just you I won't deny that some perhaps less-experienced FreeBSD users that are on the list are coming at it from the Microsoft mentality that everything older than 3 months is crap, and we all gotta run out there and buy the latest version of Windows/Office/Crapola software that is on sale. But nobody with any real experience who has been working with FreeBSD for any length of time will tell you to ashcan all your FreeBSD 4.X servers and go to 5.X immediately. They might tell you to not run FreeBSD 3.X - if you haven't installed all the security patches, of which there are an enormous number now. But there is no reason to abandon an older FreeBSD 4.X server if it is working fine for you, as long as you keep whatever portions of it are exposed to the Internet, patched with current patches. I love freeBSD. I have the skills to get my own answers as to the suitability of one OS or one version to another. Most people on this list don't. So don't steer them to 5.x when you know its not yet ready for prime time, because people rely on you to give good, honest answers in order to earn a living. I don't blindly steer people to FreeBSD 5.X In fact, officially I say the following on my website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/faq/verstouse.html If someone on-list or via private e-mail asks me about going to 5.X I will ask them what their needs are and base my reply on that. If they tell me they are a small business that needs ONE server and has an extra PC I will tell them to use 4.X - my book is aimed at that group. If they are a medium sized business that has 10 or so servers I will tell them to use 4.X for their most critical stuff but that they need to start using 5.X on some of their stuff to get up to speed on it. And if they are a Yahoo-sized business with programmers on staff specifically tasked to optimize whatever OS they are running I will tell them they need to be running all 5.X and they need to be working closely with the development team members, not me. And there are mailing lists specifically for that group. FreeBSD 5.X ain't
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that it also took quite a bit a beating to get them to admit that 1) They dont know the answer to the Subject or 2) Yahoo runs something quite different than what is available generally since they've substantially modified it. No, it is just I would be surprised if they didn't. Yahoo like any large company almost certainly has patentable ideas and a crew of lawyers reviewing everything. I would also expect they have a patent portfolio. Otherwise nothing would prevent some competitor ripping off their ideas and setting up a duplicate yahoo website. I would guess - since it is usual for this in most large companies - that some of these ideas are implemented in the FreeBSD they run. I don't work at Yahoo so I can freely speculate. And my speculations are founded on what is normal and usual for most larger companies. Nobody that works at Yahoo and actually knows the truth would be able to even speak hypothetically about what runs at Yahoo, as they would almost certaily be under an NDA. (something that is also normal and usual for most large companies) Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 01:07:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/9/04 12:56:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of OUR team's arsenal. And it's not just this sentence although this is one of the most blatent. You are using verbage and terminology that clearly sets you in opposition to the rest of us, users and developers, of FreeBSD. If this isn't a challenge you don't know the meaning of the word. Maybe you think its a challenge because the words have teeth? Who is the rest of us in your estimation? Those under the thumb of wind river, or those of us trying to run small business who would prefer ^^ *laughs* Come and join us in 2004 sometime, you might like it here. Kris pgpckVZwCXEDd.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Kris and all, Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls? Ted Mittelstaedt PS: TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of the argument. Not that we would believe them but you deserve to have to spend some time forging them up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris Kennaway Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:35:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/7/04 4:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 5 5 5 5 5 5 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 10 10 10 10 10 10 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 15 15 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 20 20 20 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 25 25 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 30 30 242213 179157 181098 169355 That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP) and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be that he ignored the table as soon as he read dual Xeon. I haven't seen this before. Check your email..the above was copied from an email of mine in this thread from earlier today. If I did, I would immediately ask: - What is the control here? What does your benchmark test? UDP packet generation rate from userland. - Is this on a gigabit link? What are the packet sizes? Was network availability a factor in limiting the test results? I didn't run that benchmark myself, so I'm not the best person to answer all of your questions, and I've asked the person who did to comment in more detail. - What does target load mean? Does it mean don't try to send more than that? If so, what does it show if you reach it? If you don't measure the utilization that it takes to saturate your target I don't see the point of having it. - It seems that the only thing you could learn from this test would be what is the maximum pps you could achieve unidirectionally out of a system. Why is that useful, since its hardly ever the requirement unless you're building a traffic generator? You can see from the data that 5.x systems are capable of pushing out more packets from userland than 4.x systems are. That's an aspect of kernel performance, and it's one that's relevant for a number of applications involving high data-rate transmission from userland. If that's not what you're interested in, then you can go and run your own benchmarks and let us know what you find out. - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the kernel. Assuming that your benchmark does test something, Your results seem to show that a uniprocessor machine is substantially more efficient than an SMP box. For this workload, yes. It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially improve SMP performance? Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly. This seems to show the opposite. No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP. Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP? Kris ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Samuel Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:32 AM To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Here is a thought. Why would they be running a pre-production release as a production server I have no idea what yahoo does, but I think it would be irrespondsible for them to attempt using 5.x on a production machine... I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least not where the good bits are. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/8/04 2:42:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is a thought. Why would they be running a pre-production release as a production server I have no idea what yahoo does, but I think it would be irrespondsible for them to attempt using 5.x on a production machine... I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least not where the good bits are. Why would they customize a beta, knowing that they'd just have to redo them when its released? I doubt they are that stupid. Also, If they've done substantial customization, then you really need to stop touting them as using FreeBSD, don't you, since they are not using whats available to everyone else. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/8/04 2:37:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kris and all, Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls? Ted Mittelstaedt PS: TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of the argument. Not that we would believe them but you deserve to have to spend some time forging them up. Ah, so now anyone who questions your data is a Troll. Very convenient. The entire point of believability is the control, and the explanation of what the test actually tests. Thats the point of having a control, Ted. The test that was posted is not believable because it doesnt test anything that would actually happen in the real world. Do you buy a car because it hit 180 on the track? Is a car that can hit 190 but gets half the gas milage a better car? You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the kernel. - Actually my traffic generator is in userland too, of course. I guess I'm just a better coder than whoever wrote your little benchmark. Or maybe the benchmark is too busy calculating stats to do the work its supposed to be doing. Another variable in the test. For this workload, yes. It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially improve SMP performance? Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly. This seems to show the opposite. No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP. Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP? You must be a democrat Kris, because you always spin what people say in a way such that is completely wrong when you say it. I said the 99% of us who don't use SMP, which is much different from no one uses SMP, isn't it? 1% of several million is not no-one, is it? Frankly, I didnt expect SMP performance to be so poor in 5.x since improving it is a stated goal. So I guess you recommend that anyone running a network server use a single processor? Are the gains in mySQL greater that the 40% loss in network performance? When mySQL is performaning so aptly, is the machine capable of handling a network load also? You (Kris) seem to think I'm asking you these questions, but I'm really not, but I guess I'm surprised you keep answering since you clearly don't have any of the answers. I'm just hoping someone does, somewhere. Because I don't see how you can develop an O/S without benchmarking your specific changes along the way. The folks at LINUX are guilty of building an O/S to suit their benchmarks. Its equally disturbing to implement theory without making sure that the theory works as expected. I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of your team's arsenal. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Oct 8, 2004, at 11:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. I think it sums it up nicely then... TM is saying he doesn't like people claiming it's going to be great when there's no release yet. Kris posted benchmarks showing things have improved and he has reason to believe it will be better. TM replies not with his own benchmarks, but basically saying he refuses to test anything until it's released and that no one should claim it's better until it's marked as a release version. So conclude by saying that there is reason to believe the next version will be better, Here's why, and that you can have the drawn out fight over performance benchmarks up the wazoo after the release is actually...well...released. TM won't be happy until it reaches this status anyway so there's no use in arguing it if only benchmarking release versions is one of the requirements for the argument to come to a conclusion. :-) -Bart ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:39:05PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: : I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole : host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, : and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least not : where the good bits are. I wonder. Wouldn't that make keeping up-to-date a lot more difficult? I would think most of the mods would be in the apps running on the OS. jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Oct 8, 2004, at 8:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must be a democrat Kris, because you always spin what people say in a way such that is completely wrong when you say it. I said the 99% of us If there was any doubt in my mind that TM4525 was a troll, he's just removed it. I think it's time for us to move on to another thread.There's no point at shouting at kids on the short bus. --Andy ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Jonathon McKitrick wrote: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:39:05PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: : I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole : host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, : and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least not : where the good bits are. I wonder. Wouldn't that make keeping up-to-date a lot more difficult? Not necessarily. It wouldn't be too difficult at all to even roll their own release, with all their custom patches, or set up their own source repo with the patches in place and do cvsup et al from their own servers. There are lots of possibilities; the fact that I don't necessarily know what they all are doesn't negate the probability that they exist. I would think most of the mods would be in the apps running on the OS. Can't say on that one. FBSD, IIRC and didn't misunderstand, runs a customized Apache, so it's not out of the realm of reason either. Kevin Kinsey ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:44:13PM +0200, Remko Lodder wrote: : Apart from that: Why do you actually want to know? It's better not to : know the exact version since others might abuse that information and : hack into the company. That does not feel right, well not with me :-). I was just wondering how they manage heavy loads. They could either stay on 4.x, move to SMP-supporting 5.x when stable, or just throw more hardware at it. :-) jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:45:09AM -0500, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. wrote: : Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:39:05PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: : : I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole : : host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, : : and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least : not : : where the good bits are. : : I wonder. Wouldn't that make keeping up-to-date a lot more difficult? : : : : Not necessarily. It wouldn't be too difficult at all to even roll their own : release, with all their custom patches, or set up their own source : repo with the patches in place and do cvsup et al from their own : servers. There are lots of possibilities; the fact that I don't necessarily : know what they all are doesn't negate the probability that they exist. I mean keeping their source synced with the 'official' source. jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Jonathon McKitrick wrote: On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:45:09AM -0500, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. wrote: : Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:39:05PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: : : I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole : : host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, : : and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least : not : : where the good bits are. : : I wonder. Wouldn't that make keeping up-to-date a lot more difficult? : : : : Not necessarily. It wouldn't be too difficult at all to even roll their own : release, with all their custom patches, or set up their own source : repo with the patches in place and do cvsup et al from their own : servers. There are lots of possibilities; the fact that I don't necessarily : know what they all are doesn't negate the probability that they exist. I mean keeping their source synced with the 'official' source. And so did I, see release(7) among other things. Cvsup one machine from their local mirror of the official site, buildworld on it with their patches, make a release (or other strategy here) and feed it to their server farm ... I'd take a while for me to figure out how to do it, but I wouldn't doubt their ability to do so. Kevin Kinsey ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Friday 08 October 2004 08:54 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. Why don't you download and install the latest 5.3 beta and test it? This is the only way to test 5.3, as there is no release yet. If you refuse to test it due to its beta status, then you should probably reconsider your challenges until 5.3 is stable and you can test it for yourself. If this is the case, then all you're doing now is making noise ... and, yes, trolling. - jt ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. 6.0 is much, much better. And try downloading a release before saying that it will suck. The folks at LINUX are guilty of building an O/S to suit their benchmarks. Its equally disturbing to implement theory without making sure that the theory works as expected. I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of your team's arsenal. Oh, ok. Go back to slashdot buddy. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Friday 08 October 2004 16:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A very simple request - I do respect peoples right to state their point of view - but there FreeBSD has through its entire life spam aimed (at least for the time I have been following the delvelopment - and that goes far longer back that I care to remember) stick to the scientific view of the world. At set of facts has been provided and there are questions about their validity or for my personal perspective not about their validity - I am just trying to understand the difference - There has never been in my point of view nor will be within this group a need for settling differences by based on anything than sound facts If the measurement is a fault - then surely it is explainable - if the observation is correct then there is a point that needs to be addressed. I will repeat what I have said before - FreeBSD for my stands for a strict Computer Science based approach to problem solving - and while everybody who has been in that world often feels the urge to let steam out - a reasonable tradition has establish that the best results are gained by dialogue So everybody Please - Everybody participating (or almost all) are an asset for the development of FreeBSD - Ego's has clashed often enough an after returning to the world of FreeBSD it seems to me that the lesson has not been learned. Sorry to everybody else for the Bla Bla In a message dated 10/8/04 2:37:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kris and all, Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls? Ted Mittelstaedt PS: TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of the argument. Not that we would believe them but you deserve to have to spend some time forging them up. Ah, so now anyone who questions your data is a Troll. Very convenient. The entire point of believability is the control, and the explanation of what the test actually tests. Thats the point of having a control, Ted. The test that was posted is not believable because it doesnt test anything that would actually happen in the real world. Do you buy a car because it hit 180 on the track? Is a car that can hit 190 but gets half the gas milage a better car? You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the kernel. - Actually my traffic generator is in userland too, of course. I guess I'm just a better coder than whoever wrote your little benchmark. Or maybe the benchmark is too busy calculating stats to do the work its supposed to be doing. Another variable in the test. For this workload, yes. It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially improve SMP performance? Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly. This seems to show the opposite. No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP. Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP? You must be a democrat Kris, because you always spin what people say in a way such that is completely wrong when you say it. I said the 99% of us who don't use SMP, which is much different from no one uses SMP, isn't it? 1% of several million is not no-one, is it? Frankly, I didnt expect SMP performance to be so poor in 5.x since improving it is a stated goal. So I guess you recommend that anyone running a network server use a single processor? Are the gains in mySQL greater that the 40% loss in network performance? When mySQL is performaning so aptly, is the machine capable of handling a network load also? You (Kris) seem to think I'm asking you these questions, but I'm really not, but I guess I'm surprised you keep answering since you clearly don't have any of the answers. I'm just hoping someone does, somewhere. Because I don't see how you can develop an O/S without benchmarking your specific changes along the way. The folks at LINUX are guilty of building an O/S to suit their benchmarks. Its equally disturbing to implement theory without making sure that the theory works as expected. I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of your team's arsenal.
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Friday 08 October 2004 16:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A very simple request - I do respect peoples right to state their point of view - but there FreeBSD has through its entire life spam aimed (at least for the time I have been following the delvelopment - and that goes far longer back that I care to remember) stick to the scientific view of the world. At set of facts has been provided and there are questions about their validity or for my personal perspective not about their validity - I am just trying to understand the difference - There has never been in my point of view nor will be within this group a need for settling differences by based on anything than sound facts If the measurement is a fault - then surely it is explainable - if the observation is correct then there is a point that needs to be addressed. I will repeat what I have said before - FreeBSD for my stands for a strict Computer Science based approach to problem solving - and while everybody who has been in that world often feels the urge to let steam out - a reasonable tradition has establish that the best results are gained by dialogue So everybody Please - Everybody participating (or almost all) are an asset for the development of FreeBSD - Ego's has clashed often enough an after returning to the world of FreeBSD it seems to me that the lesson has not been learned. The problem is that the first post on the subject of 5.xx performance was written in a very aggressively derogatory tone. In addition it exhibited quite a bit of ignorance of the process of bringing 5.xx in to being - a frequent topic on this list. In fact, hardly a day has gone by that hasn't had posts pointing out that 5.xx before 5.3 RELEASE is not ready for production. Many times it has been pointed out that it has inconsistencies that are still being worked out and debug code running that also affects how it runs. One would have to be either intentionally ignorant or intending to cause mischief to have missed all that. In the face of this, a very negative post that looks like an attempt to trash FreeBSD and the developers is very likely to ellicit some defensive responses as well as accusations of being a troll. After all, a troll is someone who jumps out from under his bridge and posts something just to get people mad and respond emotionally. Somebody with a real question and not trolling or with an axe to grind needs to ask the question as a question and not as an affront and challenge. Having said that, I would also say that those who found these posts an affront would be better off just shunning them rather than pumping up the rhetoric level. This has gone one long enough. No useful information seems to be forthcoming. I don't even remember who it was that started the OT thread. jerry Sorry to everybody else for the Bla Bla In a message dated 10/8/04 2:37:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kris and all, Sorry for the top post but would you quit feeding the trolls? Ted Mittelstaedt PS: TM, shut up and post some benchmarks proving your side of the argument. Not that we would believe them but you deserve to have to spend some time forging them up. Ah, so now anyone who questions your data is a Troll. Very convenient. The entire point of believability is the control, and the explanation of what the test actually tests. Thats the point of having a control, Ted. The test that was posted is not believable because it doesnt test anything that would actually happen in the real world. Do you buy a car because it hit 180 on the track? Is a car that can hit 190 but gets half the gas milage a better car? You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the kernel. - Actually my traffic generator is in userland too, of course. I guess I'm just a better coder than whoever wrote your little benchmark. Or maybe the benchmark is too busy calculating stats to do the work its supposed to be doing. Another variable in the test. For this workload, yes. It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially improve SMP performance? Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to hand at the
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/8/04 2:25:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. Why don't you download and install the latest 5.3 beta and test it? This is the only way to test 5.3, as there is no release yet. If you refuse to test it due to its beta status, then you should probably reconsider your challenges until 5.3 is stable and you can test it for yourself. If this is the case, then all you're doing now is making noise ... and, yes, trolling. - I haven't made any challanges. My point was that there are a lot of people making claims they have no ability to substantiate. And obviously I am correct. A guess a troll is anyone who questiong the powers that be. Must be a bunch of communists running the show here. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? In a message dated 10/8/04 2:42:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is a thought. Why would they be running a pre-production release as a production server I have no idea what yahoo does, but I think it would be irrespondsible for them to attempt using 5.x on a production machine... I'm sure that Yahoo, like any large commercial enterprise, has a whole host of specific customizations that they have applied to FreeBSD, and their version of FreeBSD doesen't look like what we have, at least not where the good bits are. Why would they customize a beta, knowing that they'd just have to redo them when its released? One of the primary reasons is to make sure that the rest of the public distribution doesen't have bugs/problems with their customizations. That is the point of the betas. There's a time that the beta code must be run on production systems. If all you do as an enterprise is run the beta code on a testbed, then you are setting yourself up for unpleasant surprises when you then apply the new production release to your production network. Quite obviously you aren't going to put beta code on every one of your systems all at once. I doubt they are that stupid. TM4525 you are frankly just too used to how beta code is treated in the Microsquash world. With Microsoft, nobody trusts their code at all, and beta Microsoft code even less. So, most people are afraid to run it on their production systems. In fact most big sites will wait until the first Service Pack comes out for the released code before switching over their production systems. It is really a big case of everyone standing around the boat saying well it looks like the holes are plugged, you first None of them are willing to get in, which is one of the reasons Microsoft first releases suck rocks. The other reason they suck rocks is that the developers in Microsoft fuck around for months playing foosball or whatever and wait until 2 months before going golden before actually working - then they work marathon sessions 24x7. With the UNIX world and FreeBSD in particular the organizations like Yahoo view the beta period as a time for them to get all the stuff they want injected into the source tree, to make their jobs easier. The only way to do this is to actually use the beta code on limited production. The ideal in the FreeBSD world is that the last weeks before going gold, there are only minor changes to the source - and that idea is quite often reached. You just need to get used to using an operating system that is used by professionals, not kids. Also, If they've done substantial customization, then you really need to stop touting them as using FreeBSD, don't you, since they are not using whats available to everyone else. Substantial customization to what? Let's see now - let's look at the Linux world. Most Linux distros make mods to the Linux kernel but call their stuff Linux. Let's look at the UNIX world. Lots of UNIXes are based on the SVR4 source license and meet T.O.G.'s definition of UNIX - but are quite different (or would have you believe so) Where I think your confused is in the issue of branding. Years ago, lots of UNIX releases would call themselves BSD or SYSV variants. The terms BSD and SYSV were branding, not technical, terms. When UCB got out of the UNIX business and turned the BSD source over to the community, the original intent was to split BSD into 3 main arms - the i386 arm (FreeBSD) the non-Intel arm (NetBSD) and the commercial arm (BSDI) What has happened since is that BSDI died and went to heaven. NetBSD, while respectable, does not have the staff working on it to pull all the really cool customizations that have been done in FreeBSD, into it's code. They have enough to do porting to stuff like Mac Centrises. OpenBSD hardly deserves a mention as it's virtually identical to NetBSD with the exception of a code audit, and it has little installed base anyhow - probably less than NetBSD. That leaves FreeBSD as the flagship BSD. Because of this, gradually the term BSD has gone bye bye, to be replaced by FreeBSD. And why not? University of California Berkeley (UCB) hasn't touched BSD or FreeBSD in years. What is the point of parading around the BSD name when the college that this was from has so shamefully turned it's back on it? It's much better to focus around a new name that is an amalgamation of the old BSD name and the new efforts the user community has put in. As FreeBSD is being ported to new hardware, and as the old funky hardware that NetBSD ran on (like Mac Centrises) is going to the Great Graveyard in the Sky, the lines between the NetBSD and FreeBSD charter are being blurred. There will always be a place
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? In a message dated 10/8/04 2:25:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. Why don't you download and install the latest 5.3 beta and test it? This is the only way to test 5.3, as there is no release yet. If you refuse to test it due to its beta status, then you should probably reconsider your challenges until 5.3 is stable and you can test it for yourself. If this is the case, then all you're doing now is making noise ... and, yes, trolling. - I haven't made any challanges. Yes you have. Your words: I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of your team's arsenal. In other words you are in effect saying your team's when you are talking about the core group that is developing FreeBSD 5 - well aren't you using FreeBSD yourself? If so, you are a member of that team. Yet, your words say the FreeBSD team is not where you are at? if you considered yourself part of the FreeBSD userbase you would say something like: I just hope that pounding packets through a socket and timing mySQL selects aren't the entirety of OUR team's arsenal. And it's not just this sentence although this is one of the most blatent. You are using verbage and terminology that clearly sets you in opposition to the rest of us, users and developers, of FreeBSD. If this isn't a challenge you don't know the meaning of the word. My point was that there are a lot of people making claims they have no ability to substantiate. And obviously I am correct. You yourself are coming from the assumption that all these people are wrong or misguided. Meaning that your assumption is that FreeBSD 5 is worse than 4. Yet you have not appeared to post anything even benchmarks that substantiates your claims that FreeBSD 5 is indeed slower. So put yourself into the same category as the folks that are claiming FreeBSD 5 is better. A guess a troll is anyone who questiong the powers that be. Must be a bunch of communists running the show here. The 'powers that be' in FreeBSD are the people contributing to it. If you want to have credibility which confers authority and therefore a small measure of what you would call power I guess then contribute something. To me the FreeBSD community isn't at all about power. If you want to see real, raw power then go work for a corporation and start making some decisions to spend lots of money, start hiring and firing people, start creating and destroying products. That's what power is all about - the ability to affect people's lives, directly, and in particular to make them do what they normally would not do. But, in the FreeBSD community power doesen't work like that at all. Even if you have a lot of money - none of these FreeBSD developers out here is going to take your money and work on something in FreeBSD that they dislike. That's not what they are here for. Instead, about the only measure of power that anyone has in the FreeBSD community is by their choice of whether to contribute or not. You choose to stand outside and throw rocks - well, your exercising a small amount of power yourself - because your NOT contributing anything of value. That lack of contribution means FreeBSD has a little bit less to it, which makes it a little bit less appealing. By contrast if you chose to create something for FreeBSD then your also exercising a little bit of power - because your contributing something of value, your making FreeBSD a bit more appealing which will help to attact more people to use it. Everyone in the FreeBSD community has this same bit of power. But what your missing is that the rock-throwers efforts rarely amount to much. Their best rock throwing is like branches scratching on the side of the house in the wind. By contrast the people that contribute to FreeBSD, well the more they contribute the more lives they affect and if your measuring power by the number of lives you affect, if you contribute a lot that will be a great many people indeed. So, sorry, but FreeBSD really doesen't have these powers-that-be which you seem to think it has. And as for a troll, that term is already well defined in many electronic forums. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
dang, how long is this thread gonna go on? Is it that important? I see a lot of good questions and equally good answers on this list, but I think this particular thread is starting to stoop beneath us all... On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 00:56, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? In a message dated 10/8/04 2:25:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You guys are the ones making the claims that 5.3 is going to be so great. I just wonder how you come to that conclusion if you don't have any definitive tests. I dont have a release to test, so when its done I'll test it. -- NetAdmin for the FoxChat.Net IRC Network. The FoxSurfer Group signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/6/04 6:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. There is none, because Mr./Ms. TM4525 is making up his/her facts to suit their assertion. The last time this claim was made it was refuted and TM4525 promised to go away and check 5.3 performance. Kris -- Actually, Kris, it wasn't refuted, you said that the exceptionally poor performance was expected until 5.3 was released, and implied that anyone who expected good performance was making a fool of themselves. Search google groups for freebsd 5.2 performance woes and sort by date to see my test details and subsequent comments by Kris and the other FreeBSD Spin Doctors. My tests are very controlled, and my assertion is a result of exceptionally poor performance in the test. And no-one refuted my results. More like jockeying to save face. Nor did I promise to go away. I promised to test 5.3 and post the results. TM ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:55:37AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/6/04 6:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. There is none, because Mr./Ms. TM4525 is making up his/her facts to suit their assertion. The last time this claim was made it was refuted and TM4525 promised to go away and check 5.3 performance. Kris -- Actually, Kris, it wasn't refuted, you said that the exceptionally poor performance was expected until 5.3 was released, and implied that anyone who expected good performance was making a fool of themselves. Search google groups for freebsd 5.2 performance woes and sort by date to see my test details and subsequent comments by Kris and the other FreeBSD Spin Doctors. My tests are very controlled, and my assertion is a result of exceptionally poor performance in the test. And no-one refuted my results. More like jockeying to save face. Nor did I promise to go away. I promised to test 5.3 and post the results. We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Kris pgpJZOfsrUDCZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Can anyone speak to performance improvement if the debug flags are removed? -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:55:37AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/6/04 6:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. There is none, because Mr./Ms. TM4525 is making up his/her facts to suit their assertion. The last time this claim was made it was refuted and TM4525 promised to go away and check 5.3 performance. Kris -- Actually, Kris, it wasn't refuted, you said that the exceptionally poor performance was expected until 5.3 was released, and implied that anyone who expected good performance was making a fool of themselves. Search google groups for freebsd 5.2 performance woes and sort by date to see my test details and subsequent comments by Kris and the other FreeBSD Spin Doctors. My tests are very controlled, and my assertion is a result of exceptionally poor performance in the test. And no-one refuted my results. More like jockeying to save face. Nor did I promise to go away. I promised to test 5.3 and post the results. We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Kris ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:04:59AM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Can anyone speak to performance improvement if the debug flags are removed? Well, it's vast :) 5.3 (i.e. the RELENG_5 branch) has them turned off already in preparation for the release. Kris pgpBqbH2Kp87m.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris Kennaway Sent: 07 October 2004 15:10 To: Bigelow, Andrea L. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Kris Kennaway' Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:04:59AM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Can anyone speak to performance improvement if the debug flags are removed? Well, it's vast :) 5.3 (i.e. the RELENG_5 branch) has them turned off already in preparation for the release. Kris -End Original Message- What is performance like in 5.2.1 with them turned off? I have never used a stable branch, being relatively new to FreeBSD, so I have nothing to compare my 5.2.1 system to. (Although it seems no slower than the gentoo box next to it which has the exact same hardware). Mick Walker NAAFI Finance International ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may be subject to legal privilege, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error or think you may have done so, you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. Please notify the sender immediately and delete the original e-mail from your system. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. Recipients should check this e-mail for the presence of viruses. The Capita Group and its subsidiaries accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. *** ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 07:04:10AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:55:37AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/6/04 6:47:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. There is none, because Mr./Ms. TM4525 is making up his/her facts to suit their assertion. The last time this claim was made it was refuted and TM4525 promised to go away and check 5.3 performance. Kris -- Actually, Kris, it wasn't refuted, you said that the exceptionally poor performance was expected until 5.3 was released, and implied that anyone who expected good performance was making a fool of themselves. Search google groups for freebsd 5.2 performance woes and sort by date to see my test details and subsequent comments by Kris and the other FreeBSD Spin Doctors. My tests are very controlled, and my assertion is a result of exceptionally poor performance in the test. And no-one refuted my results. More like jockeying to save face. Nor did I promise to go away. I promised to test 5.3 and post the results. We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 5 5 5 5 5 5 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 10 10 10 10 10 10 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 15 15 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 20 20 20 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 25 25 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 30 30 242213 179157 181098 169355 i.e. it shows a 33% improvement on UP machines, and 6% on SMP between 4.x and 5.3. (Of course, kernel packet generation is much faster than userland, but that's not what is benchmarked here.) SMP in 5.3 does a lot better in benchmarks of other types of workloads, for example mysql with the supersmack stress tool. I don't have those numbers to hand right now though. Of course, there are lots of other things you could try to benchmark, and there is certainly a lot of optimization work remaining to be done. The first step in optimizing is to find a good test case that clearly demonstrates a problem, and run it under controlled conditions. But this shows that 5.3 is clearly a good start along that path, and is a significant improvement over 4.x and older 5.x releases. You should expect further performance improvements in the 5.x branch over the coming months, as the focus of development shifts from infrastructure to optimization. Kris pgpuaVLsIQa0B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:16:49PM +0100, Walker, Michael wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris Kennaway Sent: 07 October 2004 15:10 To: Bigelow, Andrea L. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Kris Kennaway' Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:04:59AM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Can anyone speak to performance improvement if the debug flags are removed? Well, it's vast :) 5.3 (i.e. the RELENG_5 branch) has them turned off already in preparation for the release. Kris -End Original Message- What is performance like in 5.2.1 with them turned off? Not so good -- as we've been discussing in this thread, 5.2.1 was clearly marked as a development release for early adopters, and it was a work in progress for which significant optimization had not yet been performed. That has changed, and 5.3 now performs a lot better than 4.x under many workloads (particularly network-related). Kris pgpLlgd5Y3VUi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/7/04 10:17:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, obscurity Kris writes: Well, it's vast :) Kris We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Kris -- Quite a bunch of scientists on the FreeBSD team these days, eh? :) why don't you post some of these impressive benchmarks to substantiate your seemingly flimsy position? On a single processor system please, for the 99% of us who don't use SMP. Hopefully the only good reason to run 5.x won't be if you run 4 processor systems. TM ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/7/04 1:15:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 12:41:28PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/7/04 10:17:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, obscurity Kris writes: Well, it's vast :) Kris We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Kris -- Quite a bunch of scientists on the FreeBSD team these days, eh? :) why don't you post some of these impressive benchmarks to substantiate your seemingly flimsy position? On a single processor system please, for the 99% of us who don't use SMP. Hopefully the only good reason to run 5.x won't be if you run 4 processor systems. Already done so. Kris Is it really too difficult for you to post a pointer or reference for those of us who don't have the time to spend our entire lives reading mailing lists archives? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:10:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/7/04 1:15:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 12:41:28PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/7/04 10:17:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, obscurity Kris writes: Well, it's vast :) Kris We're waiting..5.3 is in beta and ready for your tests. Other benchmarks show very good results compared to 4.x. Kris -- Quite a bunch of scientists on the FreeBSD team these days, eh? :) why don't you post some of these impressive benchmarks to substantiate your seemingly flimsy position? On a single processor system please, for the 99% of us who don't use SMP. Hopefully the only good reason to run 5.x won't be if you run 4 processor systems. Already done so. Kris Is it really too difficult for you to post a pointer or reference for those of us who don't have the time to spend our entire lives reading mailing lists archives? Uh, it was in a reply to your message. Kris pgpErcHlXTq1y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
At 11:15 AM -0700 10/7/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why don't you post some of these impressive benchmarks to substantiate your seemingly flimsy position? On a single processor system please, for the 99% of us who don't use SMP. Hopefully the only good reason to run 5.x won't be if you run 4 processor systems. Already done so. Kris Is it really too difficult for you to post a pointer or reference for those of us who don't have the time to spend our entire lives reading mailing lists archives? Uh, it was in a reply to your message. This topic may be going on in multiple threads, so apologies if I am missing something. In this thread I notice a reply with the benchmark: Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 5 5 5 5 5 5 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 10 10 10 10 10 10 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 15 15 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 20 20 20 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 25 25 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 30 30 242213 179157 181098 169355 That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP) and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be that he ignored the table as soon as he read dual Xeon. But when he asked for a pointer or reference, I was expecting to see a URL which pointed to some additional benchmarks. I did not notice any URL's in any of your replies in this thread. Did you think that you had included a URL in some reply, or were you referring to the above benchmark? Or did I just miss the reply which included that URL? Mind you, the above benchmark is very encouraging, so I am not complaining about it. I am only wondering if there were additional benchmarks written up. Well, I am also wondering what the reason is for both a desired and optimal column in the above. When would desired ever be different than optimal? :-) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
In a message dated 10/7/04 4:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 5 5 5 5 5 5 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 10 10 10 10 10 10 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 15 15 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 20 20 20 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 25 25 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 30 30 242213 179157 181098 169355 That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP) and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be that he ignored the table as soon as he read dual Xeon. I haven't seen this before. If I did, I would immediately ask: - What is the control here? What does your benchmark test? - Is this on a gigabit link? What are the packet sizes? Was network availability a factor in limiting the test results? - What does target load mean? Does it mean don't try to send more than that? If so, what does it show if you reach it? If you don't measure the utilization that it takes to saturate your target I don't see the point of having it. - It seems that the only thing you could learn from this test would be what is the maximum pps you could achieve unidirectionally out of a system. Why is that useful, since its hardly ever the requirement unless you're building a traffic generator? - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? - the test seems backwards. What you are doing in this test is not something that any device does. If you want to measure user-space performance, it has to include receive and transmit response, not just transmit. Perhaps it indirectly shows process-switching performance, but doesn't tell you very much about network performance, since transmit is much more trivial than receive in terms of processing requirements. When you transmit you know exactly what you have, when you receive you have to do a lot of checking and testing to see what needs to be done. When I test network performance, I want to isoloate kernel performance if possible. If you're evaluating the system for use as a network device (such as a router, a bridge, a firewall, etc), you have to eliminate userland from the formula. The interaction between user space and the kernel is a key factor in your benchmark that is absent in a pure network device, so its not useful in testing pure stack performance. Also, there is a significant problem with maximum packets/second tests. As you reach high levels of saturation, you often get abnormal processing requirements that skew the results. For example as you get higher and higher bus saturations the processing requirements change, as I/Os take longer waiting for access to the bus, transmit queues may fill, etc. Testing under such unusual conditions may inlcude abnormal recovery code to handle such saturations that would never occur with a machine under normal loads. A better way to test is measuring utilization under realistically normal conditions. Machines can get very inefficient if their recovery code is poor, but it may not matter since no-one realistically runs a machine at 98% utilization. Assuming that your benchmark does test something, Your results seem to show that a uniprocessor machine is substantially more efficient than an SMP box. It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially improve SMP performance? This seems to show the opposite. TM ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:05:21PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: But when he asked for a pointer or reference, I was expecting to see a URL which pointed to some additional benchmarks. I did not notice any URL's in any of your replies in this thread. Did you think that you had included a URL in some reply, or were you referring to the above benchmark? Or did I just miss the reply which included that URL? No, AFAICT the AOL poster just didn't read all his email before responding. Kris pgpFPHF7V7vew.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:35:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/7/04 4:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's one benchmark, showing UDP packet/second generation rate from userland on a dual xeon machine under various target loads: Desired Optimal 5.x-UP 5.x-SMP 4.x-UP 4.x-SMP 5 5 5 5 5 5 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001 10 10 10 10 10 10 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 15 15 150015 150014 150015 150015 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097 20 20 20 179621 181445 169451 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831 25 25 242742 179979 181138 169212 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283 30 30 242213 179157 181098 169355 That does show results for both single-processor (5.x-UP 4.x-UP) and multi- processor (5.x-SMP, 4.x-SMP) benchmarks. It may be that he ignored the table as soon as he read dual Xeon. I haven't seen this before. Check your email..the above was copied from an email of mine in this thread from earlier today. If I did, I would immediately ask: - What is the control here? What does your benchmark test? UDP packet generation rate from userland. - Is this on a gigabit link? What are the packet sizes? Was network availability a factor in limiting the test results? I didn't run that benchmark myself, so I'm not the best person to answer all of your questions, and I've asked the person who did to comment in more detail. - What does target load mean? Does it mean don't try to send more than that? If so, what does it show if you reach it? If you don't measure the utilization that it takes to saturate your target I don't see the point of having it. - It seems that the only thing you could learn from this test would be what is the maximum pps you could achieve unidirectionally out of a system. Why is that useful, since its hardly ever the requirement unless you're building a traffic generator? You can see from the data that 5.x systems are capable of pushing out more packets from userland than 4.x systems are. That's an aspect of kernel performance, and it's one that's relevant for a number of applications involving high data-rate transmission from userland. If that's not what you're interested in, then you can go and run your own benchmarks and let us know what you find out. - a relatively slow machine (a 1.7Ghz celeron with a 32-bit/33mhz fxp NIC running 4.9) pushes over 250Kpps, so why is your machine, with seemingly superior hardware, so slow? Because traffic is being generated from userland, not from within the kernel. Assuming that your benchmark does test something, Your results seem to show that a uniprocessor machine is substantially more efficient than an SMP box. For this workload, yes. It also seems that the gap has widened between UP and SMP performance in 5.x. Wasn't one of the goals of 5.x to substantially improve SMP performance? Yes, and it's ongoing. You don't see it on this workload, but there are other benchmarks (e.g. mysql select testing) that I don't have to hand at the moment, which show the smp benefits of 5.3 more clearly. This seems to show the opposite. No, it shows a small increase on SMP and a large increase on UP. Anyway, weren't you demanding an email ago that I produce benchmarks on UP systems, because no-one really uses SMP? Kris pgpwBL6BExtmR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:07:44AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: : On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : I would expect they are running 4.x, but does anyone know if they have : migrated any production boxes to 5.x? Are they contributing any code to : either branch? : : Yes, a number of committers work for Yahoo. Any idea if they are running 5.x in production yet? jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Jonathon McKitrick wrote: On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:07:44AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: : On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : I would expect they are running 4.x, but does anyone know if they have : migrated any production boxes to 5.x? Are they contributing any code to : either branch? : : Yes, a number of committers work for Yahoo. Any idea if they are running 5.x in production yet? Here is a thought. Why would they be running a pre-production release as a production server I have no idea what yahoo does, but I think it would be irrespondsible for them to attempt using 5.x on a production machine... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Gerard Samuel wrote: Jonathon McKitrick wrote: On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:07:44AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: : On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : I would expect they are running 4.x, but does anyone know if they have : migrated any production boxes to 5.x? Are they contributing any code to : either branch? : : Yes, a number of committers work for Yahoo. Any idea if they are running 5.x in production yet? Here is a thought. Why would they be running a pre-production release as a production server I have no idea what yahoo does, but I think it would be irrespondsible for them to attempt using 5.x on a production machine... Apart from that: Why do you actually want to know? It's better not to know the exact version since others might abuse that information and hack into the company. That does not feel right, well not with me :-). Cheers. -- Kind regards, Remko Lodder |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reporter DSINet|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Projectleader Mostly-Harmless |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Founder Tienervaders |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:32:27AM -0400, Gerard Samuel wrote: : Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:07:44AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: : : On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : : : I would expect they are running 4.x, but does anyone know if they have : : migrated any production boxes to 5.x? Are they contributing any code : to : : either branch? : : : : Yes, a number of committers work for Yahoo. : : Any idea if they are running 5.x in production yet? : : : Here is a thought. : Why would they be running a pre-production release as a production : server : I have no idea what yahoo does, but I think it would be irrespondsible : for them to attempt using 5.x on a production machine... Possibly they would just use it on a few machines for non-critical purposes. jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Considering that its been well documented and admitted that 5.x is 1/3 the speed of 4.x at this point, do you really think they've migrated production boxes? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Considering that its been well documented and admitted that 5.x is 1/3 the speed of 4.x at this point, do you really think they've migrated production boxes? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Considering that its been well documented and admitted that 5.x is 1/3 the speed of 4.x at this point, do you really think they've migrated production boxes? Most likely this is in reference to a few lines in /usr/src/UPDATING, stating that all of the debug features are turned on by default in 5.x 5.3, making it much slower. This is less than true if those options are turned off. ~j -- Jonathan T. Sage Theatrical Lighting / Set Designer Professional Web Design He said he likes me, but he's not in-like with me.- Connie, King of the Hill [HTTP://www.JTSage.com] [HTTP://design.JTSage.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [See Headers for Contact Info] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
What are those options and how do you turn them on/off? On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:45:29 -0400, Jonathan T. Sage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run? Considering that its been well documented and admitted that 5.x is 1/3 the speed of 4.x at this point, do you really think they've migrated production boxes? Most likely this is in reference to a few lines in /usr/src/UPDATING, stating that all of the debug features are turned on by default in 5.x 5.3, making it much slower. This is less than true if those options are turned off. ~j -- Jonathan T. Sage Theatrical Lighting / Set Designer Professional Web Design He said he likes me, but he's not in-like with me.- Connie, King of the Hill [HTTP://www.JTSage.com] [HTTP://design.JTSage.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [See Headers for Contact Info] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Considering that its been well documented and admitted that 5.x is 1/3 the speed of 4.x at this point, do you really think they've migrated production boxes? Most likely this is in reference to a few lines in /usr/src/UPDATING, stating that all of the debug features are turned on by default in 5.x 5.3, making it much slower. This is less than true if those options are turned off. What are those options and how do you turn them on/off? Some of these options are : makeoptionsDEBUG=-g optionsWITNESS optionsKDB optionsDDB optionsGDB optionsINVARIANTS optionsINVARIANT_SUPPORT They can be turned off by commenting them or removing them from a custom kernel config, rebuilding and installing that kernel. Details on how to do this are in the handbook. Note that as of 5.3, these have been turned off by default. ~j -- Jonathan T. Sage Theatrical Lighting / Set Designer Professional Web Design He said he likes me, but he's not in-like with me.- Connie, King of the Hill [HTTP://www.JTSage.com] [HTTP://design.JTSage.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [See Headers for Contact Info] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Bigelow, Andrea L. wrote: Where's the documentation? I'd like to see this for myself. There is none, because Mr./Ms. TM4525 is making up his/her facts to suit their assertion. The last time this claim was made it was refuted and TM4525 promised to go away and check 5.3 performance. Kris pgpXiwPXynSCh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: I would expect they are running 4.x, but does anyone know if they have migrated any production boxes to 5.x? Are they contributing any code to either branch? Yes, a number of committers work for Yahoo. kris pgpwOBwad7reb.pgp Description: PGP signature
