From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 16 04:36:48 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 0F25F16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alogis.com (firewall.solit-ag.de [212.184.102.1])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1EC43D5F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from Holger.Kipp@alogis.com)
Received: (from hk@localhost)
	by alogis.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id i3GBaUu93484;
	Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:36:30 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from hk)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:36:30 +0200
From: Holger Kipp <Holger.Kipp@alogis.com>
To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
Message-ID: <20040416133630.A91676@intserv.int1.b.intern>
References: <200404151137.i3FBbgb34793@alogis.com>
	<200404150919.41623.sam@errno.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <200404150919.41623.sam@errno.com>;
	from sam@errno.com on Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:41AM -0700
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Question: Planned Performance improvements? GIANT free ciss,
	bge,...?
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:36:48 -0000

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:41AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Beware of ULE doing the wrong thing with SMP/HTT machines.  Try the 4BSD 
> scheduler.

I did that. ULE seems to be slightly faster - at least accoring to ab which
was benchmarking the critical application on the system.
See my original post for numbers.

Using ULE instead of 4BSD improved performance.
Not using HTT decreased performance.
Using 4-STABLE instead of 5-CURRENT decreased performance.

During the last two weeks ab showed another boost of performance
(up from 11.5 to 11.96-12.00 which is slightly more than 4%) on 5-CURRENT.

Test is mainly asking apache via ab to execute a very_large(tm) perl
program with lots of includes (compile, run) and return the result.
Call is via cgi, not mod_perl. Please don't comment on that.

Regards,
Holger Kipp