From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 18:00:47 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 5810D106566C; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:00:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E8C8FC1A; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1RbFbo-0002Sq-J3>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:00:44 +0100 Received: from e178037243.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.37.243] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1RbFbo-0008Dz-DT>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:00:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4EEA35CB.7030203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:00:43 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Kalchev References: <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215134853.GA24753@icarus.home.lan> <0C72D682-CF5E-42D6-91F3-FEF1AB02F5D6@digsys.bg> In-Reply-To: <0C72D682-CF5E-42D6-91F3-FEF1AB02F5D6@digsys.bg> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB97FEA6B9A0C0983989EA20A" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.37.243 Cc: Adrian Chadd , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Current FreeBSD , "Samuel J. Greear" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server 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 18:00:47 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB97FEA6B9A0C0983989EA20A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 12/15/11 14:58, schrieb Daniel Kalchev: >=20 > On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >=20 > [=85] >> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done. >> >> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two >> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and >> SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is an issue, other than= >> some folks confirming that SCHED_4BSD performs better for them (that's= >> what started this whole thread), and there are at least a couple which= >> have stated this. >=20 > But, are any of these benchmarks really engaging the 4BSD/ULE scheduler= differences? Most such benchmarks are run on a system with no other load= whatsoever and in no way represent real world experience. >=20 > What is more, I believe in such benchmarks "the system feels sluggish" = is not measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the bench= mark finishes "better" - that is, faster, or say, makes the system freeze= for the user for the duration of the test -- it will be considered "win"= , because the benchmark suite ran faster on that particular system -- whe= reas a system which ran the benchmark fast, provided good interactive res= ponse etc would be considered "loser". I guess you have some proofs on that "feeling"? >=20 > I think it is not good idea to hijack this thread, but instead focusing= on the other SCHED_ULE bashing thread to define an reasonable benchmark = or a set of benchmarks rather -- so that many would run it and provide fe= edback. >=20 >=20 > Daniel_______________________________________________ --------------enigB97FEA6B9A0C0983989EA20A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO6jXLAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8eHMH+gIP8qH2klzQvMwrpp40QhU1 E1Bd4Q13P5RAc69oJJWdBzz4jV9Oz9aJZzpc4uHnFI9FyxBVY9LL3QVuX3cErK7u NmxS6Hl3AkrfAZ2I0O/XGq6LF6Kmcw83LCKWubexRAaIIr4YjZd/AiTd5TlU1nyy Nml9b8yyJlt9aggS22TO6UTnqRxcvqFQhP8hAZnPjYsoN6sDd3TRynAJqNc7LWeW P8jBxo2+gqEnNDl4LYrr+RDM6Gsbr3k2+YYK98miX/DUHBLEBx0liVCpy+lPNWhl XBqGGGPjveUqBEVvUiOixU7aO8rxQDnL3PBSdreL7xeOTvP9bRdZ1lnaxpEq+4M= =YwYJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB97FEA6B9A0C0983989EA20A--