Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:14:42 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Ian Lord <mailing-lists@msdi.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: CPU affinity in new ULE scheduler Message-ID: <20051110001442.GA28042@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051109190705.048069a0@pop.msdi.ca> References: <437220DF.4127.12A8DB0@localhost> <20051110000530.GC12619@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051109190705.048069a0@pop.msdi.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 07:08:12PM -0500, Ian Lord wrote: > Are you saying that ULE is slower then 4BSD ? > > I'm new to this and when I compiled my kernel, it was "clear" ULE was > a better alternative for performance then 4BSD Yes, in the workloads I have tested. Others have reported similar things. You should carefully measure it yourself on your workloads to verify which is better. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDcpDyWry0BWjoQKURAuNJAJ9L0PkuB8UIRfZ1zRGhtpASvY9H+wCg+Cc+ w4/hw/t0Ts09krWOo73UZrc= =De91 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051110001442.GA28042>