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