From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 7 09:24:19 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BCB16A4CE for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:24:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gatekeeper.syskonnect.de (gatekeeper.syskonnect.de [213.144.13.149]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0211A43D55 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:24:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gheinig@syskonnect.de) Received: from syskonnect.de (skd.de [10.9.15.1])j079OqTl008411; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:24:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from syskonnect.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by syskonnect.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j079ODjc008096; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:24:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <41DE5568.1060000@syskonnect.de> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:24:56 +0100 From: Gerald Heinig User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kamalp@acm.org References: <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Robert Ryan Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:24:19 -0000 Hi Kamal, I don't know about any switches for ULE. My point is that it's not particularly meaningful to compare a system that's built for SMP to one that isn't. There have been a number of tests (sorry, don't have time to dig them all out) of systems with MP locks against systems without on a uniprocessor machine. The systems with MP locks were all slower. I remember a test done with Linux (2.4 IIRC) compiled with MP support and without; there were significant differences. Tests with Solaris x86 against Linux on a 1-processor machine also showed Solaris performing poorly. Use a proper MP box ("proper" meaning >= 4 CPUs) and the picture usually changes. I'd be interested to see the same test done on a 4 CPU box. Cheers, Gerald Kamal R. Prasad wrote: > --- Gerald Heinig wrote: > > >>Hi Robert, >> >>the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems >>only. >>It says nothing about multiprocessor performance, >>which is what FreeBSD >>is aiming for. > > Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch to ensure > that performance is optimal on a uniprocessor machine > too? > > >>It's comparing apples with oranges. >> >>Cheers, >>Gerald >> > > Netbsd works for upto 4 processors. So you should be > able to run the same tests on a quad-processor SMP > machine. > > regards > -kamal > > >>Robert Ryan wrote: >> >>>Fellow FreeBSD developers, >>> >>>I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable. >>> >>>Check this out: >> >>http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/ >> >>>As I predicted more than a year ago FreeBSD 5.3 >> >>has >> >>>finally lost its only advantage: performance. >> >>NetBSD >> >>>2.0 shows that when you write code the right way >> >>and >> >>>end up with SOLUTIONS AND NOT HACKS you have a >> >>system >> >>>that works, and works well on all platforms. >>> >>>This is the consequence of a series of mistakes >> >>made >> >>>by the FreeBSD developers, the most important >> >>being >> >>>too arrogant and selfish to listen to Matt Dillon, >> >>the >> >>>man that warned you all about this. What did he >> >>get >> >>>in return? An expulsion from your gentlemen club. >>> >>>Poul-Henning Kamp has been using FreeBSD to push >> >>his >> >>>personal agenda, with completely useless features >> >>such >> >>>as GEOM and devfs, instead of concentrating on the >>>real >>>problem. The fact that your heavily mutexed system >>>doesn't work and never will. >>> >>>Jeff Roberson's ULE is still broken but don't >> >>worry, >> >>>Matt Dillon will be hacking a much better >> >>scheduler >> >>>for DragonFly that you can later borrow. >>> >>>Mike Smith warned you about committee-designed >> >>code >> >>>years ago, why don't you listen? Why do you insist >> >>on >> >>>this arrogant pose and on treating potential >>>contributors like pariahs? >>> >>>Why do you tolerate assholes like Dag-Erling and >>>Poul-Henning? >>> >>>I hope you can learn something from the NetBSD >> >>people >> >>>before it's too late for FreeBSD. They managed to >> >>do >> >>>much more with less resources. You should feel >> >>ashamed >> >>>of yourselves. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> Robert >>> >>>PS: if I've offended anyone (yeah, I singled a few >>>out) >>>, prove me wrong, but spare me your insultedness. >>>It's become a pathetic hobby in -core.