Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:33:58 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Alex R <alex@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler weirdness Message-ID: <20091012043358.GA39364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <4AD29937.2040004@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> References: <6729ad0409e449f8dbda69ecd8feb618.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> <20091012014846.GB38325@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <fe073255a48a675c0a8ab5bb8c105e61.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> <20091012023912.GA38822@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4AD29937.2040004@mailinglist.ahhyes.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 01:49:27PM +1100, Alex R wrote: > Steve Kargl wrote: > >So, you have 4 cpus and 4 folding-at-home processes and you're > >trying to use the system with other apps? Switch to 4BSD. > > > > > > I thought SCHED_ULE was meant to be a much better choice under an SMP > environment. Why are you suggesting he rebuild his kernel and use the > legacy scheduler? > If you have N cpus and N+1 numerical intensitive applications, ULE may have poor performance compared to 4BSD. In OP's case, he has 4 cpus and 4 numerical intensity (?) applications. He, however, also is trying to use the system in some interactive way. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091012043358.GA39364>