Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:47:55 +0000 From: Coleman Kane <cokane@freebsd.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: smp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems Message-ID: <20070225054755.GA33858@ramen.coleyandcheryl> In-Reply-To: <20070225054120.GA47059@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070224213111.GB41434@xor.obsecurity.org> <346a80220702242100i7ec22b5h4b25cc7d20d03e98@mail.gmail.com> <20070225054120.GA47059@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:41:20AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote, and it was proclaimed: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:00:35PM -0700, Coleman Kane wrote: > > > What does the performance curve look like for the in-CVS 7-CURRENT tree with > > 4BSD or ULE ? How do those stand up against the Linux SMP scheduler for > > scalability. It would be nice to see the comparison displayed to see what > > the performance improvements of the aforementioned patch were realized to. > > This would likely be a nice graphics for the SMPng project page, BTW... > > There are graphs of this on Jeff's blog, referenced in that URL. > Fixing filedesc locking makes a HUGE difference. > > Kris Thanks. I saw that shortly after I sent the email... /me stupid. How stable is ULE now since the recent swath of rewrites in the past months? -- coleman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070225054755.GA33858>