From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 30 22:50:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783E0106568F; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:50:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout018.mac.com (asmtpout018.mac.com [17.148.16.93]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6324B8FC15; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:50:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Received: from [172.24.106.157] (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by asmtp018.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIX001XPONAC520@asmtp018.mac.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <78367CB5-7DAD-4DB1-99DA-2618CFACF376@mac.com> From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Robert Watson In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:41:42 -0700 References: <6101e8c40904300750i3e86fc0cnef09b0d4533627f7@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Oliver Pinter Subject: Re: NetBSD 5.0 statistics X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:50:03 -0000 On Apr 30, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Oliver Pinter wrote: > >> Is the FreeBSD's FS management so slow? >> >> http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/50/img15.html >> >> Or so big is the difference between the two cpu scheduler? > > Also, there's a known and serious performance regression in CAM > relating to tgged queueing, and the generic disk sort routine, > introduced 7.1, which will be fixed in 7.2. I can't speak more > generally to the benchmarks -- we'll need to run them in a > controlled environment and see if we can reproduce the results. Also :-) I recall that our "make -j X" actually limits the number of make processes/jobs to X. I don't know anything about build.sh, so I don't know if our make is at all being involved, but it would be good to know how the load varies per OS. We may simply have less parallelism in the build. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com