Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:25 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD scheduler benchmarks Message-ID: <jg67rm$nb7$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4F247975.9050208__14496.2912811481$1327796183$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F247975.9050208__14496.2912811481$1327796183$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28/01/2012 23:40, Florian Smeets wrote: > The conclusion right now seems to be that ULE is faster for database > workload, I've done the same benchmarks with Bullet Cache last year and 4BSD is *ridiculously* inefficient and slow for this specific workload which involves a lot of inter-thread and inter-process communications. The results were somewhere in the ratio of 1:10 in favor of ULE. >but for strongly CPU-bound workloads 4BSD can be a better > choice. I can provide KTR traces and/or schedgraph output for cases > where 4BSD is better than ULE. Can you try manually bind processes to CPUs with the CPU-heavy benchmark? This could be a bit hard if you use the regular pbzip2 because it spawns threads, but if you manually spawn 8 CPU-bound processes (with cpuset(1)) in parallel and measure that, it would be useful.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?jg67rm$nb7$1>