Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:24:42 -0800 From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> To: "Jeff Roberson" <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 Message-ID: <8cb6106e0711061724n16d95766q1c352aeb9584c0c7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071106171059.M544@10.0.0.1> References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <20071103121921.M544@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0711031416l4183e2beueb87fade0d56f504@mail.gmail.com> <20071103133711.Q544@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0711032221i2ecf1d59ge82f368d4162a827@mail.gmail.com> <20071104122546.S544@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0711041243s37ef92e3i9c5c79827f547dbb@mail.gmail.com> <20071104151722.M544@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0711050141g674a7733h53f7e6a20e75ad07@mail.gmail.com> <20071106171059.M544@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That's expected due to the fuzzy rounding of 128 / 10, etc. Can you set > slice_min and slice both equal to 7 and see if the numbers come out > better than without the patch but with a slice value of 7? Basically I'm > trying to isolate the effects of the different slice handling in this > patch from the other changes. So are you expecting the same performance out of this patch with slice_min and slice set to 7 as I was seeing without the patch with the slice value set to 7? I'll get the benchmarks running now with those settings, and report back soon. Josh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cb6106e0711061724n16d95766q1c352aeb9584c0c7>