From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 12 13:06:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A038216A41F for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:06:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F7A43D45 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:06:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FF146BBD; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:06:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:06:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Ian Lord In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051109190705.048069a0@pop.msdi.ca> Message-ID: <20051112130232.M33260@fledge.watson.org> References: <437220DF.4127.12A8DB0@localhost> <20051110000530.GC12619@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051109190705.048069a0@pop.msdi.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: CPU affinity in new ULE scheduler X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:06:23 -0000 On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Ian Lord wrote: > Are you saying that ULE is slower then 4BSD ? > > I'm new to this and when I compiled my kernel, it was "clear" ULE was a > better alternative for performance then 4BSD Schedulers are one of the hardest things to do right in OS design, as they rely a great deal on how workloads behave and interact. I've seen significantly varied performance between the two -- there are a lot of anecdotal reports that ULE is better for "interactive" workloads on a busy desktop machine, but keep in mind that 4BSD has seen a number of improvements in the last few years also. Right now, 4BSD is considered the "production" scheduler for FreeBSD, although there's continuing interest in improving ULE, as well as integrating some of the techniques used in ULE into 4BSD. For example, ULE used to see a significant performance win over 4BSD on SMP as it did a better job of identifying idle CPUs and migrating work to those CPUs. 4BSD has improved a lot on this front in the last year or two, and so has caught up with some of those benefits. In the end, only by measuring will you be able to tell if ULE is better for your workload. Measurement can mean qualitative experience (everything seems snappier) or quantitative (I get 14% more transactions per second with scheduler X). Robert N M Watson > > Thanks > > At 19:05 2005-11-09, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:16:31PM -0600, Jon Brisbin wrote: >> > I can't find any information on how to set the CPU affinity for processes >> in the >> > FreeBSD 6 ULE scheduler. >> >> That's because you can't. ULE gives lower performance on the >> workloads I have tested anyway. This may be fixed in the future. >> >> Kris >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >