On 7/17/07, Jeff Roberson <jroberson_at_chesapeake.net> wrote: > With regards to buildkernel times; I do not want to sacrafice performance > on other benchmarks to improve buildkernel. The problem is that 4BSD is > as agressive as possible at scheduling work on idle cores. This behavior > that helps one buildworld hurts on other, in my opinion, more important > benchmarks. > > For example: http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/sysbench.png > > ULE is 33% faster than SCHED_4BSD at this mysql test. This is a direct > result of prefering to idle to make more efficient scheduling decisions. > ULE is also faster at various networking benchmarks for similar reasons. > > I also believe that while the real time may be slower on buildworld the > system and user time will be smaller by a degree greater than the delta in > real time. This means that while you're building packages you have a > little more cpu time leftover to handle other tasks. Furthermore, as the > number of cores goes up things start to tip in favor of ULE although this > is somewhat because it's harder for even 4BSD to keep them busy due to > disk bandwidth. > > Thanks everyone for testing. Can someone confirm that they have tested > with x86 rather than amd64? I will probably commit later today. > > Thanks, > Jeff Did you compare it to latest Linux fixes? is FreeBSD + ULE + MySQL still faster than linux? -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/Received on Tue Jul 17 2007 - 16:55:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:14 UTC
