From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 16:52:12 2011 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 925D81065678; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:52:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1-6.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492BF8FC21; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBFGq9M5070372; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:52:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <4EEA25BB.7040706@sentex.net> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:52:11 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Attilio Rao References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org> <20111213104048.40f3e3de@nonamehost.> <20111213230441.GB42285@stack.nl> <4ee7e2d3.0a3c640a.4617.4a33SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4EE8D607.1000504@sentex.net> <4EEA227E.7080704@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12 Cc: Ivan Klymenko , mdf@freebsd.org, Doug Barton , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jilles Tjoelker , "O. Hartmann" , Current FreeBSD , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:52:12 -0000 On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote: > > I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a > tmpfs volume? There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not writing to the disk. > > Also what filesystem you were using? UFS > How many CPUs were in place? 4 > Did you reboot before to move the steal_thresh value? No. ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/