From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 7 01:24:48 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5465516A473 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:24:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.183]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E4913C4A5 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:24:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u77so4279592pyb for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:24:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8+8wd0l2Y83ZeKSrajFDEK127hFSs5EhsAVvuXBzRVE=; b=bX4l42oBen5edR+powrA1nv3QvPduufyVDCmYrPdyr8pnF69DPcMWF4yY9i8YlBYGpbdXtWuH5re4trMH0yuOP6uBSR8K7b8FZzxUhwVMmrpKQYCYuMtM/zyH7ya+i3EUKn9iKWVa0/d1ERzJd73BzsOctjSn2tMiHNNww9FWL8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WHhgsPPU4q9egsysIAgNg08vjZ7DOdISbkf6/7rN2nZosSTX7vNY++eWILlxJjIWKt2v08nqGINSKXn468j4kiXc7hiYmbSNIQw7RY0ISDKRLNn5IrGMeY+826Xxsgq6bnaz1LKk+yLb0lSnNznj85i47eVnNd2IHrNhgaQWfp0= Received: by 10.35.129.19 with SMTP id g19mr8177290pyn.1194398683025; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.110.17 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:24:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0711061724n16d95766q1c352aeb9584c0c7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:24:42 -0800 From: "Josh Carroll" To: "Jeff Roberson" In-Reply-To: <20071106171059.M544@10.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:24:48 -0000 > 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