From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 3 15:37:01 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 56ED74AF for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:37:01 +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 06F168FC0C for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:37:00 +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 <1TUfmO-002R1U-1U>; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:37:00 +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 <1TUfmN-000hWs-Ub>; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:37:00 +0100 Message-ID: <50953A1B.5050401@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:36:59 +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: <20121103091752.0000797f@unknown> In-Reply-To: <20121103091752.0000797f@unknown> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29" 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 15:37:01 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 11/03/12 15:17, schrieb Mark Felder: > On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:18:55 +0800 > Alie Tan wrote: >=20 >> 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 > I don't have any details but I do know that Dragonfly has been putting = a lot of work into their scheduler. Hopefully some of that will trickle b= ack our way. Obviously they made the right decissions, but a single benchmark with a DB server like postgresql doesn't tell the whole story. Let's see what Phoronix will come up with. I'd like to see some more benchmarks of DragonFly 3.2. I doubt that the DragonFly scheduler approaches will go/flow easily into FreeBSD. But I'd like to see it, even dumping ULE for a better approach. --------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29 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) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQlTobAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8TVAIANpURouGOpwbS+eftmdfwIGd 7bF8MNKPCHDvTb83hXpGZuu/nYx/LC8FWSuNn9OfjqJ9MPgMWK6XBRcw/GnSr5/g arIrPFDdN12W4fCM6y9WtNsfaUOrnFRm3s6783qvPk8+1XpmDNc+306bAQZN70i9 7hxp+y50eRUM3xfSlI8P5aY73qgPo1wThfwOudc5wOO0bLlbCzjEvMvrvbfQaCMT F9w3sCKqqE0JejudSbUBfrpnbJgFoJIq4zTOR3xMUX5U83kn/6Wyb1n2++JFJMYx uP6S6xby+bu6dZDvpv3sEbGXYxNYJxiTc5yz1BhJk76BqGrGkpCKBMoD9JN6h+w= =mYbT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29--