Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:47:45 -0700
From:      "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com>
To:        josh.carroll@gmail.com
Cc:        remy.nonnenmacher@activnetworks.com, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
Message-ID:  <b1fa29170710231047i50859fa7gde2904985a7a8c20@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/23/07, Josh Carroll <josh.carroll@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I posted this to the stable mailing list, as I thought it was
> pertinent there, but I think it will get better attention here. So I
> apologize in advance for cross-posting if this is a faux pas. :)
>
> Anyway, in summary, ULE is about 5-6 % slower than 4BSD for two
> workloads that I am sensitive to: building world with -j X, and ffmpeg
> -threads X. Other benchmarks seem to indicate relatively equal
> performance between the two. MySQL, on the other hand, is
> significantly faster in ULE.
>
> I'm trying to understand why ffmpeg and buildworld are slower in ULE
> than 4BSD, since it seems to me that ULE was supposed to be the better
> scaling scheduler.
>
> Here is a link to the original thread on the stable mailing list:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-October/037379.html
>
> Remy replied with some interesting results for building world between
> the two schedulers on an 8-way system. It seems that ULE suffers as
> more threads/processes are thrown at it, at least it appears that way
> from Remy's data.
>
> Does anyone have any additional performance tests I can run that might
> help indicate where the deficiency is in the ULE scheduler? MySQL
> performance is excellent, so I'm wondering if it was tuned to that
> particular workload?
>
> I'm not sure if Remy subscribes to this list, so I am CC'ing him. Hope
> you don't mind Remy :)


ULE is tuned towards providing cpu affinity compilation and evidently
encoding are workloads that do not benefit from affinity. Before we
conclude that it is slower, try building with -j5, -j6, j7.

 -Kip



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170710231047i50859fa7gde2904985a7a8c20>