Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:00:39 +0100 From: Florian Smeets <flo@FreeBSD.org> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD scheduler benchmarks Message-ID: <4F3FE747.20300@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F25165B.6080805@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4F247975.9050208@FreeBSD.org> <4F25165B.6080805@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 29.01.12 10:50, O. Hartmann wrote: > > We got a new workstation, two socket 6-core westmere XEON's, I forgot > the specifications, but they're driven with 2,66 GHz each and have > access to 96GB RAM. Maybe I can also setup some benchmarks, but I need > advice since I'm not a kernel GURU. > The box is prmarily running Linux due to the TESLA/GPGPU stuff we run on > it. A colleague of mine developend a software for huge satellite imagery > correction needed in planetary science, the software is highly scalable > (OpenMP) and massively using OpenCL, but using OpenCL could be switched > off. We are not interested in database performance, but more in HPC > stuff and scientific calculations. I guess we could provode also some > benchmark results after a proper setup for the workload. Since this box > in question is also running a Linux Ubuntu 11.04 server, I would be > interesting having a comparison to that. > What you could do to help is you could give mav's latest ULE patches a try with your workload and could measure stock ULE vs. the patched one. http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/sched.htt40.patch I have tested it on head, it does apply to 9-STABLE, but i haven't tried to compile or run with it, but i think it should work. Florian [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAk8/50cACgkQapo8P8lCvwlhUACfVfCJoTFwIU79G+5XvZw3glT8 oKcAn3e26nbH8K0qXjIMnUGR+Lh2/mD6 =9yHh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3FE747.20300>