From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 9 22:54:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F404A16A4CF for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:54:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.powertech.no (smtp1.powertech.no [195.159.0.145]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C8743D2D for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:54:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frode@nordahl.net) Received: from [192.168.1.34] (unknown [195.159.232.1]) by smtp1.powertech.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6800D80E4 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:54:43 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Frode Nordahl Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:54:42 +0100 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Subject: Re: ULE status X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:54:46 -0000 Hello, I have been reading curiously about the ULE scheduler on the lists for quite some time without ever getting any clear good or bad feeling about it, so I thought it was about time to give it some real experience. I briefly tried it on my desktop about a year a go, and felt that everything was a bit "choppy". I currenty have several systems under testing, awaitng to go to production once I have time to finish other projects, and can get focus back to getting them ready. I've been trashing a dual Xeon 3.06GHz box running Apache2 (default port settings, default page) using two dual Xeon clients running webbench -c 300 -t -1 (300 processes per box). Running with 4BSD the server processed aprox. 400 requests at a time, my ssh shell was very slow, and I often had to wait for up to a minute for simple commands like "uptime" to return. Switching over to ULE improved things drastically. The server now serves aprox 580 pages at a time, and the ssh shell is as snappy as if the system was completely idle (even though the load is at 590 :-) ). Enabling DEVICE_POLLING as well, increases the number of concurrent sessions handled to aprox 600. I was surprised by the actual difference in system performance and usability between 4BSD and ULE under such loads! If you haven't tried it on your heavy trafic server yet, go and do it right now! :-) Regards, Frode Nordahl On Feb 8, 2005, at 13:07, Mipam wrote: > Hi, > > I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. > Beneath is one of them: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html > > Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not? > Bye, > > Mipam. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"