From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 4 20:04:02 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1639716A420 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:04:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D989713C4A6 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:04:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (c-67-160-44-208.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.160.44.208]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l94K3xZn012754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:04:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:06:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@10.0.0.1 To: Aryeh Friedman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071004130501.A615@10.0.0.1> References: <009a01c806bc$5c7021d0$0c00a8c0@Artem> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Artem Kuchin , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler selection for web hosting 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: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:04:02 -0000 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > On 10/4/07, Artem Kuchin wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I have read that in 7-Current there are two schedulers. >> 4BSD - which, AFAIK, is a renamed new SMP scheduler, but i'm not sure >> ULE > > According to the scheduler team the only reason why ULE is not the > standard scheduler is it has poor performance on single processor > machines. Well actually the only reason it isn't default is because we didn't ask for it until too late in the release cycle. The poorer UP performance is at most 1-2% on real world tests. It has about 10% higher context switch cost than 4BSD. I have patches to improve this but they aren't quite stable yet. Thanks, Jeff > >> >> 7-current amd64 is actually seems to be VERY stable on hardware and >> software we use, so, we want to move it to production servers and >> want to get max perfomance from it for web hosting. >> >> As, as i know, scheduler is a very important thing when i comes to >> perfomance in havy loaded really multitasking system. We are having >> about 900 processes in about 20 jails. >> >> So, what is the difference between the two? Which seems to be better >> for hosting? Is ULE bugfree and stable enogh for this? > > ULE no question given your config... also from here on out I think it > is the only one under active development and a high experimental > version was tested last night and likelly to be further refined that > should really fly on such enviroments. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >