End of test sessions [Was Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 9]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

End of test sessions [Was Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 9]

Davide D'Amico
Il 26.03.2013 13:00 [hidden email] ha scritto:

> Send freebsd-performance mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of freebsd-performance digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
>       Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico)
>    2. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
>       Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico)
>    3. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
>       Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Adrian Chadd)
>    4. Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
>       Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8] (Davide D'Amico)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:00:14 +0100
> From: Davide D'Amico <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5
> MySQL
> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query using
> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second
> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using
> 2
> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads.
>
> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent:
> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895
>
> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457
>
> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*):
> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058
>
> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**):
> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to
> the
> previous one)
>
> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD:
> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062
>
> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD:
> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672
>
> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not
> only in standard oltp tests.
> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers.
>
> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests.
>
> d.
>
>
> (*)
> Using:
>    - sysctl.conf:
>      - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>      - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>    - loader.conf:
>      - kern.hz=100;
>
> (**)
> Using:
>    - sysctl.conf:
>      - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>      - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>    - loader.conf:
>      - kern.hz=100;
>    - malloc.conf -> 3N
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:45:58 +0100
> From: Davide D'Amico <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto:
>> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5
>> MySQL
>> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query
>> using
>> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per second
>> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one using
>> 2
>> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads.
>>
>> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent:
>> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895
>>
>> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
>> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457
>>
>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*):
>> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058
>>
>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**):
>> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to
>> the
>> previous one)
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD:
>> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD:
>> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672
>>
>> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and not
>> only in standard oltp tests.
>> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers.
>>
>> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests.
>>
>> d.
>>
>>
>> (*)
>> Using:
>>    - sysctl.conf:
>>      - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>>      - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>>    - loader.conf:
>>      - kern.hz=100;
>>
>> (**)
>> Using:
>>    - sysctl.conf:
>>      - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>>      - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>>    - loader.conf:
>>      - kern.hz=100;
>>    - malloc.conf -> 3N
>
> Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related to
> oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have:
>
> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
> 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218
>
> CentOS 6:
> 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282
>
> FreeBSD 9.1:
> 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787
>
> I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is, I
> hope so.
>
> I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need.
>
> Thanks,
> d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:16 -0700
> From: Adrian Chadd <[hidden email]>
> To: "Davide D'Amico" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ-Vmo=[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see
> whether it's the kernel or userland?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On 25 March 2013 07:45, Davide D'Amico <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Il 25/03/13 15:00, Davide D'Amico ha scritto:
>>
>>> Thank you Daniel for your tests, here my tests using sysbench v0.5
>>> MySQL
>>> Benchmarks r/w (80%/20%) test on 10.000.000 rows 2.000.000 query
>>> using
>>> Standard OLTP: values represent the number of transactions per
>>> second
>>> and the first number is obtained using 1 thread, the second one
>>> using 2
>>> threads, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 64 threads.
>>>
>>> CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent:
>>> 4163 7653 10905 12511 13556 14832 16270 16733 16925 16895
>>>
>>> VM CentOS 6 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
>>> 3201 5543 8299 12823 14331 15658 16842 15946 11529 9457
>>>
>>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (*):
>>> 2102 3572 5917 8060 7905 7734 7104 7304 7612 7058
>>>
>>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1 (**):
>>> 2026 3290 4927 ... (I stopped the tests because it seems similar to
>>> the
>>> previous one)
>>>
>>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS+SSD:
>>> 2780 4371 6876 8202 8077 7780 7563 7632 7960 8062
>>>
>>> FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent ZFS tweaked+SSD:
>>> 2589 4679 6438 7073 7121 7227 7132 7273 7623 7672
>>>
>>> Well, CentOS outperforms FreeBSD in every thread concurrency, and
>>> not
>>> only in standard oltp tests.
>>> I think I'll use CentOS for mysql servers.
>>>
>>> Thank you for all your time spent, support and tests.
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>>
>>> (*)
>>> Using:
>>>    - sysctl.conf:
>>>      - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>>>      - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>>>    - loader.conf:
>>>      - kern.hz=100;
>>>
>>> (**)
>>> Using:
>>>    - sysctl.conf:
>>>      - kern.eventtimer.periodic=1;
>>>      - kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast;
>>>    - loader.conf:
>>>      - kern.hz=100;
>>>    - malloc.conf -> 3N
>>
>>
>> Well, because of a misunderstanding the previous tests were related
>> to
>> oltp.lua dataset/workload, using the oltp_simple I have:
>>
>> VM FreeBSD 9.1 5.6.10-ent VMWare 5.1:
>> 2919 4758 8661 14075 16436 16328 17172 17636 17926 18218
>>
>> CentOS 6:
>> 5677 11253 22129 32096 45800 47091 42608 13097 12979 13282
>>
>> FreeBSD 9.1:
>> 2874 5179 9154 13199 14291 11627 19766 19887 21197 21787
>>
>> I don't know is these tests could help finding where the problem is,
>> I hope
>> so.
>>
>> I can do other test until wednesday 27/03 if you need.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> d.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "[hidden email]"
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:20:26 +0100
> From: Davide D'Amico <[hidden email]>
> To: Adrian Chadd <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 [WAS Re: freebsd-performance
> Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Il 25/03/13 18:11, Adrian Chadd ha scritto:
>> Can you please run a Linux install in a FreeBSD jail so we can see
>> whether it's the kernel or userland?
>
> Sure, do you have a link on how to install gnu/linux on a fbsd jail?
>
> Is ok if I use the VM I created in vmware (so it will be VMWARE ->
> FreeBSD -> Linux Jail)?
>

Hi, thanks for your support and ideas but I have to stop my test
sessions because I need to use my pair of servers in production (and
very quickly, too), so at this moment they'll remain fbsd 9.1 :)

Thank you again,
d.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: End of test sessions [Was Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 119, Issue 9]

Carl Delsey-2
On 03/31/13 14:52, Davide D'Amico wrote:
>
> Hi, thanks for your support and ideas but I have to stop my test
> sessions because I need to use my pair of servers in production (and
> very quickly, too), so at this moment they'll remain fbsd 9.1 :)
>
I figure I'll throw this out since you may still be able to check this
on a system in production, and it is easy to check.

I noticed in your dmesg output the lines "CPU supports Enhanced
Speedstep, but is not recognized." Are you running powerd? I wasn't on a
system and found that the CPU was defaulting to the lowest speed step
settings. I was seeing less than half the performance compared to Linux
on my performance tests.

Check the output of sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq and see if the reported
frequency is what it should be for your processor (2500). If not, just
enabling powerd may solve your problem.

Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"