BIND9 performance issues with SMP
Chuck Swiger
cswiger at mac.com
Sun Dec 26 17:33:58 PST 2004
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L at C#:H wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:17:32 -0700, Scott Long <scottl at freebsd.org> said:
[ ... ]
>>Do you have any comparisons to NetBSD or Solaris? Comparing to Linux
>>often results in comparing apples to oranges since there is
>>long-standing suspicion that Linux cuts corners where BSD does not.
>
> I've never done this type of test for NetBSD, since as far as I know
> NetBSD is not very SMP-aware (does this change in, e.g., NetBSD 2.0?).
Indeed, from http://www.netbsd.org/Releases/formal-2.0/NetBSD-2.0.html
"The addition of a native threads implementation for all platforms and
symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP) on i386 and other popular platforms were
long-standing goals for NetBSD 2.0. Both of these goals have now been met—SMP
support has been added for i386, SPARC, and PowerPC, the SMP support on Alpha
and VAX has been improved, and the new port to the 64-bit AMD/Opteron also
supports SMP."
> I've checked Solaris with similar tests, but I could only use
> a 2-processor sparc box. So, the results would not be very
> informative. FWIW, however, Solaris performed quite well with 2
> processors.
Solaris probably has the best SMP/threading implementation available today,
and the SPARCv8 and v9 architectures were highly oriented towards supporting
parallel execution and dealing with SMP cache coherency issues. Solaris on
SPARC scales up with more CPUs added against workload very well, the only real
problem the platform had is that individual SPARC CPU's aren't especially fast
to begin with.
Solaris is also using streams rather than a classic BSD TCP/IP network stack,
although FreeBSD itself is going beyond classic TCP/IP stuff via Netgraph...
--
-Chuck
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list