Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +0000 From: Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> 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: <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> 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. [...] > > 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. http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has some interesting stuff on SHED_ULE. I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find any with a quick google. Vince > > Within our department, we developed a highly scalable code for planetary > science purposes on imagery. It utilizes present GPUs via OpenCL if > present. Otherwise it grabs as many cores as it can. > By the end of this year I'll get a new desktop box based on Intels new > Sandy Bridge-E architecture with plenty of memory. If the colleague who > developed the code is willing performing some benchmarks on the same > hardware platform, we'll benchmark bot FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 and the most > recent Suse. For FreeBSD I intent also to look for performance with both > different schedulers available. > > O. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJO5hn7AAoJEF4mgOY1fXowOLAP/2EjhAFPb88NgKM0ieBb4X7R NSw/9HTiwcshkfEdvYjAzYZ0cUWetEuRfnPVnh+abwfJEmMzZkwA0KIz8UYGHHik 22Z2SWSVDiwZAluz0ca7Xc931ojbzrK/zVMbivqW3cvnz8P4oEnASiENnsoa89Jy Oskjd4QpAyIpB/AsYgc9FLT3kPX13fXC5bzw/zAPDsaupOYssRRlZu8nnqsEc1i1 IanLIPKLnIbpZTx75ehWxxRW8IjiQRvIe+7eBaDMhXO/Kvftotf0JzknrBnJezDQ ZdhiOTq7F1Pm3dxra+DNKD+Dw+xUCYPFq/kuyqrZNz44H3qwT60vDhvw0yDz6422 nNP11z2+G4M85sahBak5AmSHuyek7HWb6uIHHnfvwNKSX4ZsdS8MVBViNJjmCYtL PwuHDU3WdCes/vvKRNDopSp/s6RSLK9w3RT7jlMkaTu2Mmtw0BwGziDJ2pGaCQ14 68R5eO/SfNxoVp0g4lIzObyQR+//0OmALzElVK3VmHM9NoL3qZGCwBRLqjN5re82 dX6nsBr/DFJOpaFfdFLwPNyCNdNpg/WVegRkq2BEL/BaMISNiKzoVbM0Psh9gnb3 LW1j3LP2fOHhuN1bW3S31JmbNzvAnlRNynoNMldrwj5PWJY2HPk+mMFRjmRwdDTJ 9mhscz8++WRPvDZQXefl =XqaR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EE619FC.4000601>