From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 3 15:29:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E290255 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:29:47 +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 C436B8FC0A for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:29:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for freebsd-current@freebsd.org with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1TUffH-002QM7-2D>; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:29:39 +0100 Received: from e178037213.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.37.213] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for freebsd-current@freebsd.org with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1TUffG-000hBC-VH>; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:29:39 +0100 Message-ID: <5095385D.4060001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:29:33 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DragonFly vs FreeBSD scheduler References: <509531DF.6050108@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <509531DF.6050108@mu.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE68A23734FBCB71319668ECA" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.37.213 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:29:47 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE68A23734FBCB71319668ECA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 11/03/12 16:01, schrieb Alfred Perlstein: > On 11/3/12 6:18 AM, Alie Tan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> No offence, just curious about scheduler and its functionality. >> >> What is the different between this two that makes FreeBSD performance = far >> behind DragonFly BSD? http://www.dragonflybsd.org/release32/ >=20 > Looks like a few specific benchmarks that DragonFly aimed to do well at= > that we were unawares of. What is "specific" supposed to mean? It doesn't seem to be very "specific". This benchmark reflects a general tendency which can also be observed by the vast of benchmarks "Phoronix" performed. I guess FreeBSD has been benchmarked with ULE. ULE does have issues and it's obvious, that ULE performs in specific situations better than the legacy and old (but after so many years still competetive) BSD scheduler.= --------------enigE68A23734FBCB71319668ECA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQlThiAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8DzAIANayn2y7dXayOg7JtpUDJteE c9QbsWlvJ5uDPYLDQX7CvkT/BTVK5/n0yGFNbG95Pk2qCbO+0WKaXq6xjg8RHPH3 WwzP2jzYrAQAf2zUEUDHivb2z8zcHj/PYNFlInM44QGg/xF+Pl41RaDROQBWnHlG TxLguUDIkY7SoO5BUtJBiZ3qNkKfg6CdsAiqhByUA5+iUsaGzO1nGxk4mY2tFEwc /3h0vBsB3dMSsZ+qf4+OLrBh4S9RmRkkpE+/Ik6VN9RzJlCpM+tkZ/spS4hv3aha I5wq8Mk0fhTjkxjuwSn+4HuaNfF3ZOjUfz7ZvGw1INs84qgG1hcajK5hRRcnHp0= =LGcC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE68A23734FBCB71319668ECA--