From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 21 21:35:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F68106564A; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:35:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from flo@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D738FC12; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nibbler-osx-wlan.fritz.box (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7LLZF2N063901; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:35:15 GMT (envelope-from flo@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <5033FF13.2090003@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:35:15 +0200 From: Florian Smeets User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120815 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <157941699.20120815004542@serebryakov.spb.ru> <502AE8B5.9090106@FreeBSD.org> <502B775D.7000101@FreeBSD.org> <5031F636.1020405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5031F636.1020405@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigA13AA7BCE4240602815D84F4" Cc: Alexander Motin , lev@FreeBSD.org, Adrian Chadd , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:35:18 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigA13AA7BCE4240602815D84F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20.08.12 10:32, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/15/2012 03:18, Alexander Motin wrote: >> >> It is quite pointless to speculate without real info like mentioned >> above KTR_SCHED traces. >=20 > I'm sorry, you're quite wrong about that. In the cases I mentioned, and= > in about 2 out of 3 of the cases where users reported problems and I > suggested that they try 4BSD, the results were clear. This obviously > points out that there is a serious problem with ULE, and if I were the > one who was responsible for that code I would be looking at ways of > helping users figure out where the problems are. But that's just me. >=20 >> Main thing I've learned about schedulers, things >> there never work as you expect. There are two many factors are relatio= ns >> to predict behavior in every case. >=20 > In the web hosting case that I mentioned, I purposely kept every other > factor consistent; and changed only s/ULE/4BSD/. The results were both > clear and consistent. >=20 Can you please prove that with some actual numbers? I seem to recall you posted something not too long ago but i was unable to find that right now= =2E Also can you tell us what you ran and how. I would really like to reproduce this. Thanks, Florian --------------enigA13AA7BCE4240602815D84F4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAlAz/xQACgkQapo8P8lCvwmabACgr2kUZ62RJnd8pDTu9hHis8QQ or0An3BkPQSuH6OAHuEfD+IzHw/xN4Sp =mEa1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigA13AA7BCE4240602815D84F4--