<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.21299" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650440115-29062011>As asked, i will made a test with os 32 bit on the same
server as the the 64 bit, and will post this result here.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650440115-29062011>Thanks for all for your answers.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650440115-29062011>Regards.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650440115-29062011>Issam Harrathi.</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=fr dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>De :</B> HARRATHI Issam Ext OLNC/DPS
<BR><B>Envoyé :</B> mercredi 29 juin 2011 16:17<BR><B>À :</B>
'sven@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de'; 'Ryan Novosielski'; 'eivind@aminor.no';
'dufberg@telia.net'; 'lst_hoe02@kwsoft.de'<BR><B>Cc :</B>
'bind-users@lists.isc.org'<BR><B>Objet :</B> Re: better performance with
32 bit ! why?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011>When i start Bind
on server2 i do it with -n 4 ( to use 4 thread) and on server1 i start bind
with -n 8. And i see then on munin that the load is shared on all
cores.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011>For the
load-server it's another server let's call it server 3. I know that
tcpreplay is monothread so i lunch 2*25000 qps for example. And i use also
resperf for testing, what i have with resperf and tcpreplay is nearly the
same.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011>What's important
is that i 'm using always the same server3 to load the server1 and server2
(not at the same time, and using the same pcap-- rewrite twice to meet
the mac@ of server1 and server2-- ) and i start with -n 4 on the 4 cores
server and with -n 8 on the 8 cores. But i found best performance on the 32
bit server2 (4*2.33).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011>Other information
i begin the test only after sending for a few minutes 20000 qps, so then i
have only 5% of request that causes recursion, and about 15% nxdoamin answer,
finally 80% of answer from cache. This is available for the 2 server since
it's the same original pcap written twice.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011>Do i have to use
bind compiled and running on 32 bit server to have better performance rather
than bind compiled and running on 64 bit server?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011><STRONG>and to be
more clear this is the last core of the 64 bit
server:</STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV><FONT size=+0><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>processor
: 7<BR>vendor_id : GenuineIntel<BR>cpu
family :
6<BR>model :
15<BR>model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R)
CPU E5310 @
1.60GHz<BR>stepping : 11<BR>cpu
MHz : 1600.058<BR>cache
size : 4096 KB<BR>physical
id :
1<BR>siblings : 4<BR>core
id : 3<BR>cpu
cores :
4<BR>apicid :
7<BR>fpu
: yes<BR>fpu_exception : yes<BR>cpuid
level :
10<BR>wp
: yes<BR>flags :
fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36
clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall lm constant_tsc pni
monitor ds_cpl vmx tm2 cx16 xtpr
lahf_lm<BR>bogomips :
3177.52<BR>clflush size : 64<BR>cache_alignment :
64<BR>address sizes : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual<BR>power
management:<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=169534413-29062011><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>and this
is the last core of the 32 bit server:</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=169534413-29062011><FONT face=Arial
size=2><BR>processor :
3<BR>vendor_id : GenuineIntel<BR>cpu
family :
6<BR>model :
15<BR>model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R)
CPU
5140 @ 2.33GHz<BR>stepping :
11<BR>cpu MHz :
2333.389<BR>cache size : 4096 KB<BR>physical
id :
3<BR>siblings : 2<BR>core
id : 7<BR>cpu
cores :
2<BR>fdiv_bug :
no<BR>hlt_bug :
no<BR>f00f_bug :
no<BR>coma_bug :
no<BR>fpu
: yes<BR>fpu_exception : yes<BR>cpuid
level :
10<BR>wp
: yes<BR>flags :
fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush
dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl est
tm2 xtpr<BR>bogomips :
4666.97<BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=169534413-29062011>Regards.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=169534413-29062011>Issam
Harrathi</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><PRE>Issam Harrathi wrote:
><I> on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32
</I>><I> bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
</I>><I> means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
</I>><I> 8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
</I>
You can only do maths like that if you assume that everything is
multithreaded _and_ capable of spreading to multiple cores without any
overhead.
I've mentioned earlier that for example BIND only scales up to about 4
threads. Based on this, your maths example would be (kind of simplified):
64 bit vs 32 bit:
4*1.6GHz vs 4*2.33GHz
Also, you mentioned using tcpreplay, which is also apparantly
single-threaded , making the comparison like this:
1*1.6GHz vs 1*2.33GHz.
Regards
Eivind Olsen</PRE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>********************************************************************************
IMPORTANT.Les informations contenues dans ce message electronique y compris les fichiers attaches sont strictement confidentielles
et peuvent etre protegees par la loi.
Ce message electronique est destine exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionne(s) ci-dessus.
Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur ou s il ne vous est pas destine, veuillez immediatement le signaler a l expediteur et effacer ce message
et tous les fichiers eventuellement attaches.
Toute lecture, exploitation ou transmission des informations contenues dans ce message est interdite.
Tout message electronique est susceptible d alteration.
A ce titre, le Groupe France Telecom decline toute responsabilite notamment s il a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.
De meme, il appartient au destinataire de s assurer de l absence de tout virus.
IMPORTANT.This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential and may be protected by law. This message is
intended only for the named recipient(s) above.
If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message.
Any unauthorized view, usage or disclosure ofthis message is prohibited.
Since e-mail messages may not be reliable, France Telecom Group shall not be liable for any message if modified, changed or falsified.
Additionally the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
********************************************************************************
</PRE></BODY></HTML>