culverk_at_yumyumyum.org wrote: > Quoting Roderick van Domburg <r.s.a.vandomburg_at_student.utwente.nl>: > >> > Just in case you don't know, there is no 5-STABLE yet. All the 5.x >> Releases have >> > been based on -CURRENT. >> >> Indeed, I stand corrected. >> >> > > Question is then which {application,theoretical} benchmarks to run >> > > under which circumstances. Although I've heard of bonnie et al, I'm >> > > new to the benchmarking business and welcome any suggestions. >> > > >> > Something that might be interesting to try is running mysql with >> > libc_r, linuxthreads, libkse, and libthr, using the included mysql >> > benchmarks that >> come >> > with mysql. I used those benchmarks to test mysql on a few of the >> > machines >> I >> > needed to install it on at one point, and I know mysql utilizes >> > threads. >> Off >> > the top of my head I can't think of anything other than databases that >> > performed badly on FreeBSD before due to threading issues. >> >> How about Apache2 or locked subsystems (I/O and networking spring to >> mind)? >> > Good call. I hadn't thought of that because I've always just used the > preforking mpm in apache. I'm very interested in hearing what you find from your benchmarks. I've been wondering how much better KSE currently is in CURRENT ever since I started running 5.1-RELEASE on my laptop a few months ago. But I don't have the time to do extensive benchmarking, and I don't have a spare machine to run them on. (hey, I need my laptop for work.) I've also heard that 5.x ships with added kernel debugging and such. If that's true, it might be a good idea to turn that off (not sure how.). Also, running similar benchmarks on a 4.8 system would make a good comparison. -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.netReceived on Mon Sep 08 2003 - 12:19:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:21 UTC