From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 12 15:13:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043ED1065670; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vince@unsane.co.uk) Received: from unsane.co.uk (unsane-pt.tunnel.tserv5.lon1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f08:110::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616528FC1B; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vhoffman-macbooklocal.local ([10.10.10.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by unsane.co.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBCFD0EV014133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 GMT (envelope-from vince@unsane.co.uk) Message-ID: <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +0000 From: Vincent Hoffman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "O. Hartmann" References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: 513 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:03 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an >> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better >> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...] > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs > much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject comes up, it is > mentioned, that SCHED_ULE has better performance on boxes with a ncpu > > 2. But in the end I see here contradictionary statements. People > complain about poor performance (especially in scientific environments), > and other give contra not being the case. It all a little old now but some if the stuff in http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/ covers improvements that were seen. http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has some interesting stuff on SHED_ULE. I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find any with a quick google. Vince > > Within our department, we developed a highly scalable code for planetary > science purposes on imagery. It utilizes present GPUs via OpenCL if > present. Otherwise it grabs as many cores as it can. > By the end of this year I'll get a new desktop box based on Intels new > Sandy Bridge-E architecture with plenty of memory. If the colleague who > developed the code is willing performing some benchmarks on the same > hardware platform, we'll benchmark bot FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 and the most > recent Suse. For FreeBSD I intent also to look for performance with both > different schedulers available. > > O. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJO5hn7AAoJEF4mgOY1fXowOLAP/2EjhAFPb88NgKM0ieBb4X7R NSw/9HTiwcshkfEdvYjAzYZ0cUWetEuRfnPVnh+abwfJEmMzZkwA0KIz8UYGHHik 22Z2SWSVDiwZAluz0ca7Xc931ojbzrK/zVMbivqW3cvnz8P4oEnASiENnsoa89Jy Oskjd4QpAyIpB/AsYgc9FLT3kPX13fXC5bzw/zAPDsaupOYssRRlZu8nnqsEc1i1 IanLIPKLnIbpZTx75ehWxxRW8IjiQRvIe+7eBaDMhXO/Kvftotf0JzknrBnJezDQ ZdhiOTq7F1Pm3dxra+DNKD+Dw+xUCYPFq/kuyqrZNz44H3qwT60vDhvw0yDz6422 nNP11z2+G4M85sahBak5AmSHuyek7HWb6uIHHnfvwNKSX4ZsdS8MVBViNJjmCYtL PwuHDU3WdCes/vvKRNDopSp/s6RSLK9w3RT7jlMkaTu2Mmtw0BwGziDJ2pGaCQ14 68R5eO/SfNxoVp0g4lIzObyQR+//0OmALzElVK3VmHM9NoL3qZGCwBRLqjN5re82 dX6nsBr/DFJOpaFfdFLwPNyCNdNpg/WVegRkq2BEL/BaMISNiKzoVbM0Psh9gnb3 LW1j3LP2fOHhuN1bW3S31JmbNzvAnlRNynoNMldrwj5PWJY2HPk+mMFRjmRwdDTJ 9mhscz8++WRPvDZQXefl =XqaR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----