Possible evidence of performance regression for 8.1-S (vs. 7.1)
david at catwhisker.org
Tue Oct 26 11:29:17 UTC 2010
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:09:53PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >It appears to me that the last test runs show results that are just
> >about identical to the "native" 8.1-S kernel+userland, so if I
> >understand the logic correctly, that appears to implicate something in
> >the 8.1-S kernel (or the default configuration for same).
> yes, exactly.
Good to get confirmation; thanks. :-}
> however the interesting thing is that while it took more wall-clock time,
> it took less system and user time.
Aye; Dan Nelson also pointed that out, and it is rather interesting.
> you might try the 4bsd scheduler to see what that does..
OK -- but we were using the default scheduler in each case. The basic
point I'm making here is the apparent performance regression for
similarly-configured systems under 7.1 vs. 8.1.
> also, compare the configs of the two kernels
Well, under 7.1, we used the MAC kernel config; since that didn't exist
for 8.x, I used GENERIC for it. (We had used GENERIC under 7.1 until a
certain application we use required MAC support. I haven't tried to
make that application work under 8.x yet, as there are plans to
deprecate its use.)
David H. Wolfskill david at catwhisker.org
Depriving a girl or boy of an opportunity for education is evil.
See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/attachments/20101026/ff5d6429/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-performance