Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:42 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <4EE73366.7080304@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote: >=20 > On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote: >=20 >>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an >>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better >>> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...] >=20 >> Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs >> much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject comes up, it is >> mentioned, that SCHED_ULE has better performance on boxes with a ncpu = > >> 2. But in the end I see here contradictionary statements. People >> complain about poor performance (especially in scientific environments= ), >> and other give contra not being the case. > It all a little old now but some if the stuff in > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/ > covers improvements that were seen. >=20 > http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html > shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has som= e > interesting stuff on SHED_ULE. >=20 > I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find > any with a quick google. >=20 >=20 > Vince >=20 >=20 Interesting, there seems to be a much more performant scheduler in 7.0, called SCHED_SMP. I have some faint recalls on that ... where is this beast gone? Oliver --------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk7nM2YACgkQU6Ni+wtCKv+SoQD9E1daXYU8i3DtYikG3KoKXf3b J+ujUpCBkPNh4fs1RHUA/RkDAdKThLx4xcV7WgblHwEkkZgyLAaAEbfOz2S/s94I =TMYp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EE73366.7080304>