SuperMicro i7 (UP) - very slow performance

[John Baldwin]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:43:10 am Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:30:33AM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at acm.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > I think something is badly wrong here.  That's less than 1/2 the speed
> > > of my Athlon 4850e (2.5GHz) and only 60% more than my Atom N270.  None
> > > of the other figures you posted look anomolous.  Are you sure the CPU
> > > is actually running at full speed and you haven't done something like
> > > disable the caches in BIOS?
> > >
> > 
> > FWIW:
> > 
> > FreeBSD galacticdominator.com 8.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-PRERELEASE #1: 
Sun
> > Jun 20 21:05:37 CDT 2010
> > adam at galacticdominator.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
> > amd64
> > CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         870  @ 2.93GHz (2940.64-MHz K8-class
> > CPU)
> > 
> > MD5 time trial. Digesting 100000 10000-byte blocks ... done
> > Digest = 766a2bb5d24bddae466c572bcabca3ee
> > Time = 2.012719 seconds
> > Speed = 496840352.000000 bytes/second
> > 
> > vmstat
> > -i
> > 
> > interrupt                          total
> > rate
> > 
> > irq16: vgapci0+                 10720642         54
> > irq18: fwohci0                         2          0
> > irq23: ehci1                      623712          3
> > cpu0: timer                    393496151       1996
> > irq256: hdac0                    8063581         40
> > irq257: re0                      4136265         20
> > irq259: ahci1                    1925783          9
> > cpu1: timer                    393494902       1996
> > cpu6: timer                    393494606       1996
> > cpu5: timer                    393494653       1996
> > cpu7: timer                    393494701       1996
> > cpu4: timer                    393494785       1996
> > cpu3: timer                    393494732       1996
> > cpu2: timer                    393494404       1996
> > Total                         3173428919      16102
> > 
> > His interrupts seem high compared to this setup, but I don't what expected
> > values should be.
> 
> How are his interrupt rates "higher" than yours?  If you're focused on
> the cpuX entries, don't be.
> 
> To the OP:
> 
> 1) I don't see how/why USB Legacy support would have anything to do with
> your problem (meaning: you stated that things "improved a little" if you
> disabled USB Legacy support in the BIOS, which makes no sense given what
> that option does).

Actually, if he does not have any USB drivers loaded then it means that the
BIOS is triggering an SMI# at least once a second.  It would not explain all 
of his problem, but it might have a small effect.

-- 
John Baldwin