From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 12 08:29:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9591416A4CE; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:29:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BE943D54; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:29:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7C8TkLu044180; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:29:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)i7C8TkJA044174; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:29:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.chesapeake.net: jroberson owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:29:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson To: Martin Blapp In-Reply-To: <20040811200323.B31181@cvs.imp.ch> Message-ID: <20040812042621.O7322@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <20040811200323.B31181@cvs.imp.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:51:08 +0000 cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Robert Watson Subject: Re: SCHEDULE and high load situations X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:29:47 -0000 On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Martin Blapp wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > You might well want to try 4BSD. > > > > I did that too. The milter stress test I run was sending 200 mails > with 5 different sorts of attachements into a mail loop. This means > these 200 mails are going 26 times trough the milter. > > The ULE scheduler did process them first very fast. With more processes, > the sendmail transactions lagged a lot and it was only running 1-2 of > them at one time. This sucks because there is also a lot of timeout > handling (waiting for DNS responses). > > All in one I must say that the SCHED4BSD processed the mails in half of > the time as SCHEDULE did. The mix involved included everything: > > - Preforked mimedefang workers > - Forked Sendmails > - Threaded applications like clamd, mimedefang-milter > > So I'd call it a typical real world situation. > > Another thing I observed was that SCHED4BSD has zero IDLE time, while > SCHEDULE always idled between 20% and 50% ! This with 500 running processes > and a load of 2.5 -3.0. > Hi martin. This is a great test. Can you try it with my most recent change to sched_ule.c? Your version should be 1.21. I found some serious issues that have been addressed. Secondly, what kind of machine is this? Is this test simple to setup so that I may reproduce it here? Thanks! Jeff > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >