From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 20 21:13:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB8EBEE for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:13:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com) Received: from mail.intertainservices.com (mail.intertainservices.com [69.77.177.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B769B8FC0C for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.intertainservices.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.intertainservices.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD365644B for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:03:03 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:03:03 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik To: Subject: Re: new DragonFly-3.2 scheduler and PostgreSQL comparision with FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 Organization: Intertainservices In-Reply-To: References: <507832E3.1050801@quip.cz> Message-ID: X-Sender: mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.1 X-intertainservices-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-intertainservices-MailScanner-ID: 6CD365644B.AF883 X-intertainservices-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-intertainservices-MailScanner-From: mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com X-Spam-Status: No X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:13:02 -0000 On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about >> config, >> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. >> And they >> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2. > > Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing worse than Linux and > Dragonfly BSD. I wonder why that is. > > Lemme cross post this a little to see what people think. > >> >> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.html >> >> Graphs are available as PDF attachments >> >> >> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0002.pdf >> >> >> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0003.pdf These numbers show very significant improvements. Any possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this too much work? I know many have and still complain about our current scheduler. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 20 21:54:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B85A76 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:54:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from csmtp2.one.com (csmtp2.one.com [91.198.169.22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8638FC13 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.44] (unknown [176.222.238.90]) by csmtp2.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6B50A307C820; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:54:52 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: new DragonFly-3.2 scheduler and PostgreSQL comparision with FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 From: Erik Cederstrand In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:54:52 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1D1F9FB0-F0DE-4E8C-B07D-6C1D63E0F182@cederstrand.dk> References: <507832E3.1050801@quip.cz> To: Mike Jakubik X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:54:59 -0000 Den 20/11/2012 kl. 22.03 skrev Mike Jakubik = : > On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >>> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about = config, >>> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. = And they >>> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2. >>=20 >> Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing worse than Linux and >> Dragonfly BSD. I wonder why that is. >>=20 >> Lemme cross post this a little to see what people think. >>=20 >>> = http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.html >>>=20 >>> Graphs are available as PDF attachments >>>=20 >>> = http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff8= 8/attachment-0002.pdf >>>=20 >>> = http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff8= 8/attachment-0003.pdf >=20 > These numbers show very significant improvements. Any = possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this too = much work? I know many have and still complain about our current = scheduler. According to the last PDF, the scheduler is only part of the picture. It = seems this email by Matt Dillon sums up the changes: = http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-September/017490.html Erik= From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 20 21:56:52 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701D3B88 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:56:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234708FC14 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:56:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2492842A; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:56:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [89.177.49.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41F8128429; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:56:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50ABFC9A.80708@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:56:42 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Jakubik Subject: Re: new DragonFly-3.2 scheduler and PostgreSQL comparision with FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 References: <507832E3.1050801@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:56:52 -0000 Mike Jakubik wrote: > On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >>> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about >>> config, >>> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. >>> And they >>> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2. >> >> Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing worse than Linux and >> Dragonfly BSD. I wonder why that is. >> >> Lemme cross post this a little to see what people think. >> >>> >>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.html >>> >>> Graphs are available as PDF attachments >>> >>> >>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0002.pdf >>> >>> >>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0003.pdf >>> > > These numbers show very significant improvements. Any > possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this too > much work? I know many have and still complain about our current scheduler. Just for the record. There is Phoronix benchmark comparing DF 3.0.3, 3.2.1 and Ubuntu 12.10 showing that scheduler tweaks was good for pgbench, but not so significant for other tasks. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=dragonfly_linux_32 Miroslav Lachman From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 20 23:19:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84CD806 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E458FC0C for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Tax6Q-003egb-EL>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:19:38 +0100 Received: from e178034204.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.34.204] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1Tax6Q-002r1a-AO>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:19:38 +0100 Message-ID: <50AC1004.3080407@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:19:32 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121114 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new DragonFly-3.2 scheduler and PostgreSQL comparision with FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 References: <507832E3.1050801@quip.cz> <50ABFC9A.80708@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <50ABFC9A.80708@quip.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF604AD40338E9B274B8064B3" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.34.204 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:19:39 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF604AD40338E9B274B8064B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 11/20/12 22:56, schrieb Miroslav Lachman: > Mike Jakubik wrote: >> On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >>>> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about >>>> config, >>>> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. >>>> And they >>>> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2. >>> >>> Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing worse than Linux and >>> Dragonfly BSD. I wonder why that is. >>> >>> Lemme cross post this a little to see what people think. >>> >>>> >>>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.ht= ml >>>> >>>> Graphs are available as PDF attachments >>>> >>>> >>>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7= 996ff88/attachment-0002.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7= 996ff88/attachment-0003.pdf >>>> >>>> >> >> These numbers show very significant improvements. Any >> possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this too= >> much work? I know many have and still complain about our current >> scheduler. >=20 > Just for the record. There is Phoronix benchmark comparing DF 3.0.3, > 3.2.1 and Ubuntu 12.10 showing that scheduler tweaks was good for > pgbench, but not so significant for other tasks. >=20 > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Ddragonfly_linux_= 32 >=20 > Miroslav Lachman It is always this pgbench benchmark that gives the numbers and the scientific area seems to get a shortcut all the way. Well, by zapping through Phoronix' benchmarks I found no recent benchmark comparing FreeBSD 9.1-PRE, DargonFly 3.0 and 3.2 as well as Ubuntu 12.04/10 or Scientific Linux 6.2, only older ones: Linux Red Hat 6.2 versus Ubuntu 12.04 LTS: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Drhel_ubuntu_62&num= =3D1 Mac OS X vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dmacosx_108dp1_ubun= tu&num=3D1 Oracle Linux 6.1 versus FBSD 9.0: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Dnews_item&px=3DMTAyNzA I find it hard to make those benchmarks comparable, since the test parcours seems to be inconsistent from benchmark to benchmark. The HIMENO bench occurs late, CRAY bench is not available in most benchmark tests and even the NAS test isn't very often present. It is not easy to find a clear answer for questions like "what compiler and compiler options has been used ... et cetera. I'm impressed by the DragonFly approach and performance jump and I'm disappointed having FreeBSD again far behind Linux - but it is the PostgreSQL benchmark. It seems that in most cases, Ubuntu Linux is always ahead of every other OS at the moment - if someone "believes" the Phoronix benchmark results. O. Hartmann --------------enigF604AD40338E9B274B8064B3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQrBAJAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8QAUIANEqrXbZpXJvcMygowbJtCGy NhoMjMcr1i0+5Q3NWB93txMx8xcf3CTtfgY3SRYNoT3ljWpFwXgcVkGqLaZNTVZl byt4Zc8jsdV10sbC/CrTMdIgbzdLgiuRgTkNyqeRW+uUmI1AnajmkPppWOA0YVpv CwzXtAGTruSZesAdiD/ueewWxSFnOOZGbJGszCuXFjftsvTsAMgoXMmfehvymYdv jUs9Uffg2ap1wI8Rg/kzEiZ8J2YCeouvyQNyJgslhF0MqIiCekDn65Ac5nBAX51G oYEOQOoRis4hRq/Lux03129ykYoA/BS2UWyajDdgimlwhdjG7x6LIQvw6+C2T2o= =rmqZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF604AD40338E9B274B8064B3-- From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 20 23:28:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545E49C1 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:28:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com) Received: from mail.intertainservices.com (mail.intertainservices.com [69.77.177.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6FE8FC13 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:28:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.intertainservices.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.intertainservices.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7CC56C2C for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:27:54 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:27:54 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik To: Subject: Re: new DragonFly-3.2 scheduler and PostgreSQL comparision with FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 Organization: Intertainservices In-Reply-To: <50ABFC9A.80708@quip.cz> References: <507832E3.1050801@quip.cz> <50ABFC9A.80708@quip.cz> Message-ID: <9d0d4c08b2b18bcaef1a233d28f8079d@intertainservices.com> X-Sender: mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.1 X-intertainservices-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-intertainservices-MailScanner-ID: BE7CC56C2C.A26F8 X-intertainservices-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-intertainservices-MailScanner-From: mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com X-Spam-Status: No X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:28:01 -0000 On 2012-11-20 04:56 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Mike Jakubik wrote: >> These numbers show very significant improvements. Any >> possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this >> too >> much work? I know many have and still complain about our current >> scheduler. > > Just for the record. There is Phoronix benchmark comparing DF 3.0.3, > 3.2.1 and Ubuntu 12.10 showing that scheduler tweaks was good for > pgbench, but not so significant for other tasks. > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=dragonfly_linux_32 > Indeed it seems like the performance gains were targeted at PostgreSQL, though performance has not dropped in any other areas according to this benchmark. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 21 09:12:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A7C238 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:12:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from c.kworr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902AF8FC16 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:12:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id s9so4350443iec.13 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:12:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WeCsbardrBFZJk8JStyrw8Cl1K6o9Goo5Q8TldDOYTQ=; b=SeHzF4rZkGOaz/a/atmMyc349tTyPDxdnQdpZL8aO8wI4pp18gp1QLtyOUQXH8+H4N 26BSZY2SvYXJz/LboPMIZkx7kdRqdkUYffY5w192BvGhsXQc2bwFhs2c8L3cv+I6viCr WKEFyHNFWA5JhjpttPKLhOIc/wDc6isuNifJazJ1smyGMCFLF13Mp/o00qm12XxqU+1c 3tu28zDUikk+R+PD+frFPWXzQjXg+lD8C4ecZaCPKL6ICaTYS7noyRuW9K7ea1R5baxg ArJQp5HUxjsPzjGjDlK7azh9FCs09TKnRYyURFVbxhsupxxiaRysZVB48f6sUwup4rC4 aeJw== Received: by 10.50.104.232 with SMTP id gh8mr13237531igb.45.1353489127626; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:12:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.132] (mau.donbass.com. [92.242.127.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wh5sm11531110igb.17.2012.11.21.01.12.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:12:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50AC9AE2.5010402@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:12:02 +0200 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121116 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Jakubik Subject: Re: new DragonFly-3.2 scheduler and PostgreSQL comparision with FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 References: <507832E3.1050801@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:34:40 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:12:08 -0000 20.11.2012 23:03, Mike Jakubik wrote: >>> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about >>> config, >>> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. >>> And they >>> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2. >> >> Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing worse than Linux and >> Dragonfly BSD. I wonder why that is. >> >> Lemme cross post this a little to see what people think. >> >>> >>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.html >>> >>> Graphs are available as PDF attachments >>> >>> >>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0002.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0003.pdf >>> > > These numbers show very significant improvements. Any > possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this too > much work? I know many have and still complain about our current scheduler. That's a no go. In short DragonFly was sprung off long ago because Matt Dillon preferred the other way of working with multiple CPUs. From my point of view DragonFly kernel architecture is much closer to Singularity and Barrelfish. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.