Reduced java/tomcat performance 6-beta3 -> 6-stable ?

[Eirik Øverby]

Follow-up:
I've now ran vmstat during load, which confirms the findings of  
vmstat during idle time.

Slow system - one sample before and after load start included:
procs      memory      page                    disks     faults      cpu
r b w     avm    fre  flt  re  pi  po  fr  sr da0 pa0   in   sy  cs  
us sy id
3 0 0 2468572  45476   14   0   0   0  18   4   0   0 1049 3201 5132   
0  0 100
0 0 1 2468572  42388    1   0   0   0 154   0   5   0 6852 19813  
19970 22  8 70
1 0 0 2468572  39332    1   0   0   0 155   0  11   0 6823 19661  
19886 23  7 71
2 0 0 2468432  36336    1   0   0   0 160   0   6   0 7031 20356  
20534 19  7 74
0 0 0 2468432  33228    1   0   0   0 156   0   5   0 6685 19420  
19613 20  7 73
2 0 0 2468432  29928    1   0   0   0 164   0   5   0 7105 20483  
20673 21  7 71
1 0 0 2468432  53568    1   0   0   0 153 1308   5   0 6688 19278  
19537 21  8 72
1 0 1 2468432  50580    2   0   0   0 150   0   6   0 6408 18430  
18693 24  7 69
0 0 0 2468432  47748    2   0   0   0 143   0   6   0 6323 18098  
18328 26  7 67
0 0 0 2468432  45056    1   0   0   0 136   0   5   0 5607 17122  
17062 16  7 77
0 0 0 2468432  45040    0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0 1093 3172 5164   
0  0 100

Fast system:
procs      memory      page                    disks     faults      cpu
r b w     avm    fre  flt  re  pi  po  fr  sr da0 pa0   in   sy  cs  
us sy id
0 0 0 2439276  39708    1   0   0   0   6   0   1   0  281 1029 992   
6  1 93
0 0 0 2439276  39380    7   0   0   0  16   0   1   0  665 1341 1714   
2  1 98
0 0 0 2439276  36472    5   0   0   0 145   0   6   0 5569 12409  
14821 21  7 72
0 0 0 2439276  33512    1   0   0   0 149   0   5   0 5862 12597  
15532 15  6 79
0 0 0 2439276  30600    1   0   0   0 146   0   4   0 5682 12655  
15102 19  7 74
2 0 0 2439276  54144    1   0   0   5 152 1310  10   0 6006 12908  
15964 17  6 77
0 0 0 2439276  51176    2   0   0   0 151   0   7   0 5348 11899  
14190 22  6 72
2 0 0 2439276  48104   98   0   0   0 248   0   5   0 5924 12889  
15757 15  7 78
1 0 0 2439276  45172    1   0   0   0 147   0   5   0 5882 12660  
15624 16  7 77
2 0 0 2439276  42276    1   0   0   0 145   0   5   0 5558 12477  
14864 21  6 73
0 0 0 2439276  39300    1   0   0   0 149   0   5   0 5842 12660  
15556 14  7 79
0 0 0 2439276  36348    1   0   0   0 150   0   8   0 5659 12562  
15042 21  5 74
0 0 0 2439276  33404    1   0   0   0 150   0   7   0 5868 12642  
15536 14  6 80
0 0 0 2439276  30588    1   0   0   0 142   0   6   0 5449 11961  
14487 19  7 74
0 0 0 2439276  30588    0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0  227  246 565   
0  0 100

I'm tempted to upgrade the fast system to 6-STABLE (same rev as the  
slow one). Even the slow system performs "adequately", though it  
might help me isolate any potential hardware differences.

/Eirik

On Nov 28, 2005, at 15:54 , Joseph Koshy wrote:

> EØ> *loads* more context switches than on the BETA-3 system.
> EØ> I have not yet tried this during load
>
>  - Which scheduler have you configured (BSD or ULE)?
>  - What do the interrupt statistics show?  Any interrupt
>    storms?  Please check the mailing lists for a prior
>    discussion on interrupt storms on some motherboards.
>  - Could you post the dmesg output from the systems (I
>    presume there aren't any significant differences).
>
> Please CC -stable too.
>
> --
> FreeBSD Volunteer,     http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy
>
>