Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:16:54 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> To: "Josh Paetzel" <josh@tcbug.org> Cc: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710231316w48c2ce59w5df70103771642a1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200710231509.03771.josh@tcbug.org> References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <b1fa29170710231047i50859fa7gde2904985a7a8c20@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0710231257k154e9c6ev4b4ba8c3692206fb@mail.gmail.com> <200710231509.03771.josh@tcbug.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just curious, but are these results obtained while you are > overclocking your 2.4ghz CPU to 3.4ghz? That might be a useful > datapoint. Yes they are with the CPU overclocked. I have verified the results when not overclocked as well (running at stock). > It also might be useful to know what sort of disks you are using. > SATA is notoriously bad at parallel access, and compiling is of > course horribly disk bound to begin with. I'm sure disk I/O is a factor here. ULE is supposed to provide better interactiveness during high load (and I/O load), right? Perhaps the scheduler is being too liberal with time slices for I/O? Josh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cb6106e0710231316w48c2ce59w5df70103771642a1>