From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan  7 09:21:13 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6402916A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  7 Jan 2005 09:21:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from shrike.submonkey.net (cpc2-cdif3-6-0-cust204.cdif.cable.ntl.com
	[81.103.67.204])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106A643D39
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  7 Jan 2005 09:21:13 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from setantae@submonkey.net)
Received: from setantae by shrike.submonkey.net with local (Exim 4.43
	(FreeBSD))	id 1CmqIx-000E8f-0d; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0000
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:21:10 +0000
From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>
To: kamalp@acm.org
Message-ID: <20050107092110.GG49329@submonkey.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>, kamalp@acm.org,
	Gerald Heinig <gheinig@syskonnect.de>,
	Robert Ryan <rustyryan882000@yahoo.co.uk>,
	freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
References: <41DE4F3D.8050509@syskonnect.de>
	<20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050107091004.83732.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com>
X-PGP: finger ceri@FreeBSD.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net>
cc: Gerald Heinig <gheinig@syskonnect.de>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
cc: Robert Ryan <rustyryan882000@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Benchmark: NetBSD 2.0 beats FreeBSD 5.3
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:21:13 -0000


--QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>=20
> > Hi Robert,
> >=20
> > the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems
> > only.
> > It says nothing about multiprocessor performance,
> > which is what FreeBSD=20
> > is aiming for.
> Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch to ensure
> that performance is optimal on a uniprocessor machine
> too?

I don't know, but if it did that would only affect scheduling, and
only in the ULE case at that.  ULE was broken in 5.3-RELEASE.

I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS.  My
only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeBSD.

Ceri
--=20
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former.			  -- Einstein (attrib.)

--QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFB3lSGocfcwTS3JF8RAgjJAJ9uObfcjWSmezBKHGoOoEHjNgEmkACgwO3I
IdpgvseRqrQ83ofZQ9NvMZU=
=O1Zp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--QkXThh+LsIUYhkMH--