From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 11 18:10:44 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E527416A56F; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:10:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.imp.ch (ns1.imp.ch [157.161.1.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8987443D48; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:10:40 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mb@imp.ch)
Received: from cvs.imp.ch (cvs.imp.ch [157.161.4.9])
	by mail.imp.ch (8.12.9p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i7BIAVMk014636;
	Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:10:32 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from Martin.Blapp@imp.ch)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:10:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040811122806.17560G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Message-ID: <20040811200323.B31181@cvs.imp.ch>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040811122806.17560G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checksum: 0e73bd6c2d0df148b8970e7680a10d85
X-Virus-Message-Status: No
X-Virus-Status: No, scantime="0.0012 seconds"
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 required=5 scantime="4.1723 seconds"
	tests=BAYES_50
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SCHEDULE and high load situations
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:10:45 -0000


Hi,

>
> You might well want to try 4BSD.
>

I did that too. The milter stress test I run was sending 200 mails
with 5 different sorts of attachements into a mail loop. This means
these 200 mails are going 26 times trough the milter.

The ULE scheduler did process them first very fast. With more processes,
the sendmail transactions lagged a lot and it was only running 1-2 of
them at one time. This sucks because there is also a lot of timeout
handling (waiting for DNS responses).

All in one I must say that the SCHED4BSD processed the mails in half of
the time as SCHEDULE did. The mix involved included everything:

- Preforked mimedefang workers
- Forked Sendmails
- Threaded applications like clamd, mimedefang-milter

So I'd call it a typical real world situation.

Another thing I observed was that SCHED4BSD has zero IDLE time, while
SCHEDULE always idled between 20% and 50% ! This with 500 running processes
and a load of 2.5 -3.0.

Martin