From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 24 01:06:48 2007 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 4642E16A420 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:06:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D5113C4C4 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:06:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so30685nzf for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:06:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=CDPZP3rIo+9CU5/IUiWNIMT/bqI87uC5LFqtBOr9+a4=; b=EYz6Ex7Xo7m22mhrDh8uO0ASXOqoGAmA9zxrytHS89x4AYJh2mxe8Wymnv6RmqgqUYA6fqydqpOdo1BoKwel8IOpDkvDUVnlz9lk3t8DBRSxXyMPGxGlJPrOLFKZ8B1eeMw58IjZiv5rlaljQjzQb1w2uyqi6AA124ZgvdtKB9U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CcIPnOkMqnK7ztHUE5Ywv4eN6ShjOGvIlIM6bLfeh8K5/Gj1WOu6VQNrc/MCNLjVFanMAwiOWCDxq7ZpcS5I5FZrq5YtIwPziSFEQv+IKCbxRpT5OpaIiGRuXCxL7mMikt7CcnpO3caPdZFnCEGolt4x3q0qHSPWgMbbeegGH1U= Received: by 10.35.92.18 with SMTP id u18mr22449pyl.1193187999070; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.117.12 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710231806g224fa219n9c6bc4900dcef9b7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:06:39 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0710231455j1f97c694l5e54578442bde123@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0710231257k154e9c6ev4b4ba8c3692206fb@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0710231455j1f97c694l5e54578442bde123@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:06:48 -0000 I decided to do some testing of concurrent processes (rather than a single process that's multi-threaded). Specifically, I ran 4 ffmpeg (without the -threads option) commands at the same time. The difference was less than a percent: 4bsd: 439.92 real 1755.91 user 1.08 sys ule: 442.10 real 1754.65 user 1.34 sys The difference in user/sys is slight, but there. Not sure if that's pertinent, though, given it is such a small percentage. I also ran the same scenario with mencoder, with similar results: 4bsd: 377.96 real 1501.58 user 2.04 sys ule: 377.50 real 1501.68 user 1.93 sys I think this is important, as it shows an N-process workload on an N-processor system is the same between ULE and 4BSD, while a single process (N-threads) workload on an N-processor system seems to favor 4BSD (at least for media encoding). I'm still unsure why MySQL is so much better with ULE, given these results. Again, hope this information is useful! Josh