Re: Scheduler selection for web hosting

From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson_at_chesapeake.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Aryeh Friedman wrote:

> On 10/4/07, Artem Kuchin <matrix_at_itlegion.ru> wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I have read that in 7-Current there are two schedulers.
>> 4BSD - which, AFAIK, is a renamed new SMP scheduler, but i'm not sure
>> ULE
>
> According to the scheduler team the only reason why ULE is not the
> standard scheduler is it has poor performance on single processor
> machines.

Well actually the only reason it isn't default is because we didn't ask 
for it until too late in the release cycle.  The poorer UP performance is 
at most 1-2% on real world tests.  It has about 10% higher context switch 
cost than 4BSD.  I have patches to improve this but they aren't quite 
stable yet.

Thanks,
Jeff

>
>>
>> 7-current amd64 is actually seems to be VERY stable on hardware and
>> software we use, so, we want to move it to production servers and
>> want to get max perfomance from it for web hosting.
>>
>> As, as i know, scheduler is a very important thing when i comes to
>> perfomance in havy loaded really multitasking system. We are having
>> about 900 processes in about 20 jails.
>>
>> So, what is the difference between the two? Which seems to be better
>> for hosting? Is ULE bugfree and stable enogh for this?
>
> ULE no question given your config... also from here on out I think it
> is the only one under active development and a high experimental
> version was tested last night and likelly to be further refined that
> should really fly on such enviroments.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Oct 04 2007 - 18:04:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC