On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Martin Blapp wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > You might well want to try 4BSD. > > > > I did that too. The milter stress test I run was sending 200 mails > with 5 different sorts of attachements into a mail loop. This means > these 200 mails are going 26 times trough the milter. > > The ULE scheduler did process them first very fast. With more processes, > the sendmail transactions lagged a lot and it was only running 1-2 of > them at one time. This sucks because there is also a lot of timeout > handling (waiting for DNS responses). > > All in one I must say that the SCHED4BSD processed the mails in half of > the time as SCHEDULE did. The mix involved included everything: > > - Preforked mimedefang workers > - Forked Sendmails > - Threaded applications like clamd, mimedefang-milter > > So I'd call it a typical real world situation. > > Another thing I observed was that SCHED4BSD has zero IDLE time, while > SCHEDULE always idled between 20% and 50% ! This with 500 running processes > and a load of 2.5 -3.0. > Hi martin. This is a great test. Can you try it with my most recent change to sched_ule.c? Your version should be 1.21. I found some serious issues that have been addressed. Secondly, what kind of machine is this? Is this test simple to setup so that I may reproduce it here? Thanks! Jeff > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >Received on Thu Aug 12 2004 - 06:29:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:05 UTC