Re: kqueue

On 28.09.2016 23:39, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Ok, here's a version tweaked to use EVFILT_PROC for postmaster death
>>> detection instead of the pipe, as Tom Lane suggested in another
>>> thread[1].
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Ran benchmarks on unaltered 96rc1 again just to be safe. Those are first.
>> Decided to throw a 32 process test in there as well to see if there's
>> anything going on between 4 and 64
>
> Thanks! A summary:
>
> [summary]
>
> The variation in the patched 64 client numbers is quite large, ranging
> from ~66.5k to ~79.5k. The highest number matched the unpatched
> numbers which ranged 77.9k to 80k. I wonder if that is noise and we
> need to run longer (in which case the best outcome might be 'this
> patch is neutral on FreeBSD'), or if something the patch does is doing
> is causing that (for example maybe EVFILT_PROC proc filters causes
> contention on the process table lock).
>
> [..]
>
> It's difficult to draw any conclusions at this point.

I'm currently setting up a new FreeBSD machine. Its a FreeBSD 11 with
ZFS, 64 GB RAM and Quad Core. If you're interested in i can give you
access for more tests this week. Maybe this will help to draw any
conclusion.

Greetings,
Torsten