From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 23 20:17:02 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3D616A46D for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:17:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFD113C48D for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:17:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so798896nzf for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:16:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Qr7yUp6ceCGSiKJR6eDF6KArYDvLf9dUEyDbIoqCHbo=; b=Cre2WSkO0B6Nhni1gcouh3sC2OmC0GAR525Y5PPzXQHg6emlfys3Dg+QZfx5NUxh5olc1tO5BGp8Wro8OGbTflOBeH+SHoFHR6xy8cibF7VIhreC8If6sKp3/TRz70qXeQuWOBLcntdI/cTg7KOe5kXM4tuLStlr7FyobEfV3cI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HpmHYnhoav2bMh0IJ1fNJaYYAREbrKW/somG+GRSj8G9pySURRVDt/BNUubmgmSBPgLI6gw9OgZq+KltfYu0EX3Evbtl/OjeACFFAS0L3s7BprEIJP45ohxGkjcb7ExzSECuXx8LVE8mYtBW/dMwJ9ImHqvIIJ2R+NX+sudST6o= Received: by 10.35.40.10 with SMTP id s10mr8028698pyj.1193170614590; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.117.12 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710231316w48c2ce59w5df70103771642a1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:16:54 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" To: "Josh Paetzel" In-Reply-To: <200710231509.03771.josh@tcbug.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0710231257k154e9c6ev4b4ba8c3692206fb@mail.gmail.com> <200710231509.03771.josh@tcbug.org> Cc: Kip Macy , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:17:02 -0000 > 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