Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    2,554

    FreeBSD 6.1 performance issues

    Ive been playing around with FreeBSD and i do like it's very lightweight considering the alternatives.

    On a dual AMD MP 2200+ and 2GB ram Raid5 10K SCSI drives, Its not the top of the line of all servers... but its still a good server.

    When compiling software (apache,php,mysql,etc etc) it seems very sluggish... So i found a benchmark here on the forum and gave it a go, heres the results from that.

    /dev/da0s1f 17741062 1542666 14779112 9% /usr

    Start Benchmark Run: Sun Nov 19 07:52:35 PST 2006
    7:52AM up 1:06, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

    End Benchmark Run: Sun Nov 19 08:03:06 PST 2006
    8:03AM up 1:16, 1 user, load averages: 13.19, 5.62, 2.69


    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 8960948.2 237.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1125.6 135.5
    Execl Throughput 188.3 988.8 52.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 25070.0 93.8
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 9511.0 88.3
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 158168.0 102.8
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1256372.8 112.4
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 56268.0 36.4
    Process Creation 569.3 2913.1 51.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 281.9 62.9
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 1166551.9 101.9
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 86.1
    So after compiling all the software, i formated the box and installed Centos 3.8 ran the benchmark and much to my surprise the score was in the high 120's.

    Can someone shed some sunlight on this?
    Remote Hands and Your Local Tech for the Los Angeles area.

    (310) 573-8050 - LinkedIn

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Jeremy I have seen exactly the same. I didnt feel like bugging with it so we just installed centos for the client
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven
    Jeremy I have seen exactly the same. I didnt feel like bugging with it so we just installed centos for the client
    Yup, I think I was the client in this case . I can confirm that I did indeed experience this...
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Side note:

    We tried on multiple servers for example:

    Dual p3 1gb ram ide drive got around 113 on centos, while on freebsd got less then 80

    Besides the benchmarks, the servers didnt feel as fast when doing pretty trivial jobs, untaring etc.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    2,554
    I so agree on the untaring part.. I thought it was the raid array, but on centos there was no problem at all.

    Seems *BSD has had problems with multi proc/core, not sure where to go from this now.
    Remote Hands and Your Local Tech for the Los Angeles area.

    (310) 573-8050 - LinkedIn

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy
    I so agree on the untaring part.. I thought it was the raid array, but on centos there was no problem at all.

    Seems *BSD has had problems with multi proc/core, not sure where to go from this now.
    Go to 6.2 - this is exactly the kind of thing that's being worked on in 6.x.

    Kevin

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ukiah, California
    Posts
    394
    Further - what scsi card are you running? I have had horrible (IO) performance with some adaptec U160 cards. Switching to LSI cards fixed many of the problems.
    Jacob Turner -- Ringnebula Systems
    Managed IT solutions for small business

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    2,554
    I'm using the compaq smart array 5300. Ill give 6.2 a try.

    If i install 6.2 RC1 is it possible to update to stable when it comes out?
    Last edited by Jeremy; 11-22-2006 at 04:57 AM.
    Remote Hands and Your Local Tech for the Los Angeles area.

    (310) 573-8050 - LinkedIn

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    2,554

    6.2 blah...

    [bummer]

    So i gave it a go and..
    /dev/da0s1a 507630 37504 429516 8% /

    Start Benchmark Run: Wed Nov 22 04:39:42 PST 2006
    4:39AM up 3 mins, 2 users, load averages: 0.10, 0.10, 0.05

    End Benchmark Run: Wed Nov 22 04:50:10 PST 2006
    4:50AM up 14 mins, 2 users, load averages: 9.65, 4.85, 2.39


    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 9015705.8 239.3
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1130.5 136.0
    Execl Throughput 188.3 990.5 52.6
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 14253.0 53.3
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 9202.0 85.4
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 158858.0 103.3
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1178222.4 105.4
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 54745.6 35.4
    Process Creation 569.3 2881.9 50.6
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 279.9 62.5
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 1130366.8 98.8
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 80.7
    6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #0: Thu Nov 16 05:12:08 UTC 2006 [email protected]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386

    [/bummer]
    Remote Hands and Your Local Tech for the Los Angeles area.

    (310) 573-8050 - LinkedIn

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    What if you tried disabling SMP? (just for comparison)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ukiah, California
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0
    What if you tried disabling SMP? (just for comparison)
    I'm still pointing my finger at the disk subsystem.

    Jeremy,

    The link below has some filesystem and kernel tuning tips that may help you out.

    http://groups.google.com/group/maili...fd389f1a99b273
    Jacob Turner -- Ringnebula Systems
    Managed IT solutions for small business

  12. #12
    FreeBSD is known for being significantly slower than it's Linux sisters, however the advantage of a FreeBSD box is that with thousands of visitors to a domain hosted on the BSD box the load will remain low whilst CentOS for example will start crumbling at the knees, freezing up and trying to kernel panic.

    So it's ultimately speed over stability or vice versa.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff - Exceed
    FreeBSD is known for being significantly slower than it's Linux sisters, however the advantage of a FreeBSD box is that with thousands of visitors to a domain hosted on the BSD box the load will remain low whilst CentOS for example will start crumbling at the knees, freezing up and trying to kernel panic.

    So it's ultimately speed over stability or vice versa.
    That is more dependent on the web server used than the OS. I've stress tested CentOs heavily and I don't notice much difference from FreeBSD. But, yes, FreeBSD is more stable (Unix in general is)- but that doesn't mean less load.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Quote Originally Posted by ringnebula
    I'm still pointing my finger at the disk subsystem.

    Jeremy,

    The link below has some filesystem and kernel tuning tips that may help you out.

    http://groups.google.com/group/maili...fd389f1a99b273

    Been there done that on layer0's server did not notice much of an increase.

    Side note, recently had a client that moved from freebsd 6.1 to centos 4 he used the exact same configure lines for apache mysql and php and configurations, i didnt look into it much BUT the loads are cut into half.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,005
    Has anyone else tried to switch to CentOS or REDHAT and compare them with FreeBSD ?
    Anyone tested it on single core/single cpu system ?

    2x difference in load is a lot.
    Best Regards,
    Namesniper

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Quote Originally Posted by NameSniper
    Has anyone else tried to switch to CentOS or REDHAT and compare them with FreeBSD ?
    Anyone tested it on single core/single cpu system ?

    2x difference in load is a lot.


    Recently we moved an entire cluster to centos (4 webservers, 1 image/memcache server, 1 slave database server, 1 master database server). With the same configuration we haven't had a box lockup. At one point we were using freebsd for all high traffic sites, but recently we have found many of them perform better on centos.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,005
    Steven can you please keep us posted as you move more servers to centos or other linxu distros ?

    By the way why centos and not other distribution ?
    Best Regards,
    Namesniper

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Quote Originally Posted by NameSniper
    Steven can you please keep us posted as you move more servers to centos or other linxu distros ?

    By the way why centos and not other distribution ?

    Its just the handiest. We don't use any of the prebuilt packages, so its not really a big deal for me.


    I do have a site thats on two servers, one for db and one for web. Its not being moved from freebsd, however when it was on 1 server on centos loads were around 1.80. Its now on two servers and the load on the webserver is always above 2.0. When 6.2 is released I will be upgrading and will let you know what happens.

    Dual core opteron with sata drives btw.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,005
    I hope that FreeBSD will improve its performance in 6.2 release as beeing 2x times behind CentOS is really not a good idea since perfromance means more hardware and more money for hosting when you can pay less.
    Best Regards,
    Namesniper

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    2,554
    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 9012982.0 239.2
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1132.2 136.2
    Execl Throughput 188.3 997.8 53.0
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 25612.0 95.9
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 9434.0 87.6
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 159547.0 103.7
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1154461.4 103.2
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 80390.6 52.0
    Process Creation 569.3 2865.6 50.3
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 278.8 62.2
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 1038081.7 90.7
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 87.5
    FreeBSD local.socal.rr.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 11:05:30 UTC 2007 [email protected]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386



    Same thing when using a single proc. Ill pass on bsd for SMP systems....

    local# dmesg | grep CPU
    CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) MP 2200+ (1792.02-MHz 686-class CPU)
    FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs
    cpu0: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0
    cpu1: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0
    SMP: AP CPU #1 Launched!
    Last edited by Jeremy; 02-05-2007 at 02:06 PM.
    Remote Hands and Your Local Tech for the Los Angeles area.

    (310) 573-8050 - LinkedIn

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,304
    Which benchmark is this? And what are the server specs (dmesg output)?

    Kevin

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    2,554
    Hey Kevin,

    In the first page it shows the specs but, dual amd mp 2200+ 2gb raid5.

    dmesg doesn't show anything odd other then a few com port errors

    but running centos or fedora she scores in the 120's and have no performance issues.

    you might know more about freebsd then i do, i can give you a login ( this box is at my house before production use

    As for the benchmark its one in the Dedicated forum VPS vs Dedicated servers, i used it just to see if i was going nuts when i would compile (ports or from source) or untar files everything was taking ages to complete.
    Remote Hands and Your Local Tech for the Los Angeles area.

    (310) 573-8050 - LinkedIn

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by sigma
    Which benchmark is this? And what are the server specs (dmesg output)?

    Kevin
    I know you have a lot of BSD-based servers, is there any chance that you can use this benchmark on one of your own?

  24. #24
    What benchmark is it?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    wget/fetch http://members.dslextreme.com/users/...1.0-wht.tar.gz

    gunzip -dvc unixbench-4.1.0-wht.tar.gz | tar xvf -

    cd unixbench-4.1.0-wht

    make

    ./Run

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0
    I know you have a lot of BSD-based servers, is there any chance that you can use this benchmark on one of your own?
    Yes, definitely. I built unixbech 4.1.0 from /usr/ports on a 6.2-RELEASE system. This server is a Pentium 4 3.4Ghz with 1GB of RAM and a 120GB SATA150 drive (Hitachi).

    Code:
    
                         INDEX VALUES
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        116700.0  4908699.8      420.6
    Double-Precision Whetstone                      55.0     1005.2      182.8
    Execl Throughput                                43.0     1580.3      367.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         3960.0    50842.0      128.4
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1655.0    62248.0      376.1
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks         5800.0    28497.0       49.1
    Pipe Throughput                              12440.0   733280.7      589.5
    Pipe-based Context Switching                  4000.0   110622.9      276.6
    Process Creation                               126.0     6956.7      552.1
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                     6.0      424.3      707.2
    System Call Overhead                         15000.0   464425.7      309.6
                                                                     =========
         FINAL SCORE                                                     292.1
    
    Offhand, I would say something is seriously wrong with your system.

    Kevin

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by sigma
    Yes, definitely. I built unixbech 4.1.0 from /usr/ports on a 6.2-RELEASE system. This server is a Pentium 4 3.4Ghz with 1GB of RAM and a 120GB SATA150 drive (Hitachi).

    Code:
    
                         INDEX VALUES
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        116700.0  4908699.8      420.6
    Double-Precision Whetstone                      55.0     1005.2      182.8
    Execl Throughput                                43.0     1580.3      367.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         3960.0    50842.0      128.4
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1655.0    62248.0      376.1
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks         5800.0    28497.0       49.1
    Pipe Throughput                              12440.0   733280.7      589.5
    Pipe-based Context Switching                  4000.0   110622.9      276.6
    Process Creation                               126.0     6956.7      552.1
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                     6.0      424.3      707.2
    System Call Overhead                         15000.0   464425.7      309.6
                                                                     =========
         FINAL SCORE                                                     292.1
    
    Offhand, I would say something is seriously wrong with your system.

    Kevin
    unixbench-wht and the unixbench you used are actually fairly different. I would be curious to know the results of unixbench-wht (I posted the source link earlier) and the specs of the system...

    Thanks

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0
    unixbench-wht and the unixbench you used are actually fairly different. I would be curious to know the results of unixbench-wht (I posted the source link earlier) and the specs of the system...
    Ah, I see, different baseline numbers. Do you know why a different baseline is being used?

    The 6.2 system (P4 3.4) scores 86.7; a similar 4.8 system (Athlon XP 2800+) scores 114.4. The big differences seem to be in "Pipe-based Context Switching" and "Process Creation", with small differences in "Execl Throughput" and "Pipe Throughput".

    I wonder if this is a bit artificial, like the Linux kernel benchmarking (vs OpenBSD) a while back, which really emphasized specific things like trying to launch as many threads as possible per second. The overall performance we have always gotten from FreeBSD, for our mix of Web hosting loads, has been excellent.

    I'd welcome further technical discussion (please, not another 52-page thread of nothing but benchmark numbers).

    Kevin

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Quote Originally Posted by sigma
    Ah, I see, different baseline numbers. Do you know why a different baseline is being used?

    The 6.2 system (P4 3.4) scores 86.7; a similar 4.8 system (Athlon XP 2800+) scores 114.4. The big differences seem to be in "Pipe-based Context Switching" and "Process Creation", with small differences in "Execl Throughput" and "Pipe Throughput".

    I wonder if this is a bit artificial, like the Linux kernel benchmarking (vs OpenBSD) a while back, which really emphasized specific things like trying to launch as many threads as possible per second. The overall performance we have always gotten from FreeBSD, for our mix of Web hosting loads, has been excellent.

    I'd welcome further technical discussion (please, not another 52-page thread of nothing but benchmark numbers).

    Kevin


    Sigma,

    On the same hardware with both centos 4 and freebsd 6.1 I had found a difference of 45 seconds extacting a file from a tarball that was reproducible each time. On centos 4 it was 45 seconds faster then doing it on freebsd.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  30. #30
    I need to upgrade to 6.2-RELEASE than I will post some my results.. using 2 servers identical in spec: DL360, Dual Xeon 3.0, 72GB x 2 SCSI RAID1, Smart Array 6i, 192Mb BBWC on board
    Last edited by jmccormick; 02-06-2007 at 12:48 PM.

  31. #31
    Through the use of a proprietary MySQL clustering system we were forced to add CentOS database servers and we are experimenting with CentOS web servers as well. We run a busy forum network of about 50 sites. I had some servers that have yet to go into production so I ran the tests on them. Up until a couple months ago, all our servers were a mix of 5.4 / 6.2 boxes. The tests are performed on idle machines.

    Each test server is identical in spec: DL360, 2GB ECC RAM, Dual Xeon 3.0, 72GB x 2 SCSI RAID1, Smart Array 6i, 192Mb BBWC on board

    Tests: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE, CentOS 4.4, FreeBSD 6.2-RC2

    The RC2 test performed slightly better than RELEASE. The CentOS score is double that of BSD...? Is that correct? Platforms are identical, but the BSD box seems crippled in comparison. I'm kinda suspicious of that number and maybe I'll try again on a fresh install...

    FreeBSD host1.host.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #1: Tue Feb 6 13:49:29 EST 2007

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht)
    System -- host1.host.com
    /dev/da0s1f 8122126 7005370 466986 94% /usr

    Start Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 6 14:39:37 EST 2007
    2:39PM up 3 mins, 1 user, load averages: 0.10, 0.18, 0.08

    End Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 6 14:50:08 EST 2007
    2:50PM up 13 mins, 1 user, load averages: 11.40, 5.08, 2.46


    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 8570048.1 227.5
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 879.4 105.8
    Execl Throughput 188.3 1750.1 92.9
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 25476.0 95.3
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 13482.0 125.2
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 468127.0 304.3
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 883773.6 79.0
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 79503.8 51.5
    Process Creation 569.3 5033.1 88.4
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 556.9 124.3
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 702398.0 61.4
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 107.6
    Linux host2.host.com 2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp #1 SMP Tue Jan 30 12:33:47 EST CentOS release 4.4 (Final)

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht)
    System -- Linux host2.host.com 2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp #1 SMP Tue Jan 30 12:33:47 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
    67862104 2073736 62341176 4% /

    Start Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 6 11:27:18 EST 2007
    11:27:18 up 3 days, 19:57, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01

    End Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 6 11:37:25 EST 2007
    11:37:25 up 3 days, 20:07, 3 users, load average: 16.62, 6.73, 2.87


    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 10165833.3 269.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 811.6 97.7
    Execl Throughput 188.3 5698.2 302.6
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 100600.0 376.5
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 31198.0 289.7
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 752701.0 489.3
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 304068.3 196.8
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1457837.7 130.4
    Process Creation 569.3 16453.9 289.0
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 979.0 218.5
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 1701818.1 148.7
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 231.5
    The servers are unoptimized for the most part. Nothing special has been done, the CentOS server was just installed days ago.

    However, we have yet to test the servers under real world load so I am hoping to have an opportunity to do that soon.

    RC2 TEST:

    FreeBSD host1.host.com 6.2-RC2 FreeBSD 6.2-RC2 #0: Thu Dec 28 19:15:11 EST 2006

    ==============================================================
    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht)
    System -- host1.host.com
    /dev/da0s1f 8122126 6719042 753314 90% /usr

    Start Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 6 11:14:37 EST 2007
    11:14AM up 6 days, 19:16, 3 users, load averages: 1.66, 0.64, 0.24

    End Benchmark Run: Tue Feb 6 11:25:12 EST 2007
    11:25AM up 6 days, 19:27, 3 users, load averages: 14.35, 5.89, 2.83


    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 8791999.3 233.3
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 880.4 105.9
    Execl Throughput 188.3 1727.2 91.7
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 26016.0 97.4
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 14314.0 132.9
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 476999.0 310.1
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 901862.9 80.7
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 113445.3 73.4
    Process Creation 569.3 4793.4 84.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 541.9 121.0
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 699095.2 61.1
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 111.6
    Last edited by jmccormick; 02-06-2007 at 04:09 PM.

  32. #32

    unixbench vs unixbench-wht

    Something is wrong with this benchmark tool.
    I run both on my laptop and the original unixbench keep it bussy all the time.
    The cpu load and/or the FS was instantlly busy, but when I run the wht variant
    most of the time my CPU and hdds what 100% indle, so what actually is benchmarked as without client/server it is not the network .. ?

    Also unixbench makes 10 passes for every test and the wht variant only 2 passes.
    From what I know for hdds and filesystems it's good to run more passes if you want to achieve real results elswhere you are banchmarking caching.

    I made some benchmark test recently (FS) with RH4 ext3 raid10, freebsd 6.2 with gmirror (soft raid) and freebsd 6.2 raid10, and results was catastrophiic for red hat/ext3

    Soon I'll have the chance to compare both OSes again, so I'm collecting ideas now

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •