Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:42 +0100
From:      "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To:        Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default
Message-ID:  <4EE73366.7080304@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk>
References:  <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>=20
> On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
>=20
>>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>>> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
>=20
>> Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
>> much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject comes up, it is
>> mentioned, that SCHED_ULE has better performance on boxes with a ncpu =
>
>> 2. But in the end I see here contradictionary statements. People
>> complain about poor performance (especially in scientific environments=
),
>> and other give contra not being the case.
> It all a little old now but some if the stuff in
> http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/
> covers improvements that were seen.
>=20
> http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html
> shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has som=
e
> interesting stuff on SHED_ULE.
>=20
> I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find
> any with a quick google.
>=20
>=20
> Vince
>=20
>=20

Interesting, there seems to be a much more performant scheduler in 7.0,
called SCHED_SMP. I have some faint recalls on that ... where is this
beast gone?

Oliver


--------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk7nM2YACgkQU6Ni+wtCKv+SoQD9E1daXYU8i3DtYikG3KoKXf3b
J+ujUpCBkPNh4fs1RHUA/RkDAdKThLx4xcV7WgblHwEkkZgyLAaAEbfOz2S/s94I
=TMYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EE73366.7080304>