What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
Ted Mittelstaedt
tedm at toybox.placo.com
Thu Oct 7 23:37:00 PDT 2004
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: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: TM4525 at aol.com
> Cc: questions at freebsd.org; drosih at rpi.edu
> Subject: Re: What version of FBSD does Yahoo run?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:35:18PM -0400, TM4525 at aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/7/04 4:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> drosih at rpi.edu
> > 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
> > 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000
> > 75000 75000 75001 75001 75001 75001
> > 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000
> > 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000 125000
> > 150000 150000 150015 150014 150015 150015
> > 175000 175000 175008 175008 175008 169097
> > 200000 200000 200000 179621 181445 169451
> > 225000 225000 225022 179729 181367 169831
> > 250000 250000 242742 179979 181138 169212
> > 275000 275000 242102 180171 181134 169283
> > 300000 300000 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
>
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list