Bill Davidsen wrote:
One other oddment about this motherboard, Forgive if I have over-snipped this trying to make it relevant...
Andreas Baer wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Andreas Baer wrote:
There clearly is a problem on the system installed on this machine. You should
use strace to see what this machine does all the time, it is absolutely not
expected that the user/system ratios change so much between two nearly
identical systems. So there are system calls which eat all CPU. You may want
to try strace -Tttt on the running process during a few tens of seconds. I
guess you'll immediately find the culprit amongst the syscalls, and it might
give you a clue.
I hope you are talking about a hardware/kernel problem and not a software
problem, because I tried it also with LiveCD's and they showed the same results
on this machine.
I'm not a linux expert, that means I've never done anything like that before,
so it would be nice if you give me a hint what you see in this results. :)
Am I misreading this, or is your program doing a bunch of seeks not followed by an i/o operation? I would doubt that's important, but your vmstat showed a lot of system time, and I just wonder if llseek() is more expensive in Linux than Windows. Or if your code is such that these calls are not optimized away by gcc.
I don't know what exactly produces this _llseek calls, but I ran the compiled binaries on both machines (desktop + notebook) without any recompilation and so I think they should do the same (even if this is bad or not optimized), but I see a time difference of more than 2:30 :) This _llseek calls also don't seem to be faster or slower if you compare the times on the notebook and the desktop.