From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 7 05:52:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D3F106564A; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:52:44 +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 D46018FC12; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1QehVy-0000hP-PP>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:52:42 +0200 Received: from e178008197.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.8.197] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1QehVy-0001x6-Lm>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:52:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4E1549AA.4060404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:52:42 +0200 From: "Hartmann, O." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110630 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Pinter References: <4E1421D9.7080808@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4E147F54.40908@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20110706162811.GA68436@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20110706193636.GA69550@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4E14CCE5.4050906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 85.178.8.197 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:01:40 +0000 Cc: FreeBSD Current , Steve Kargl , arrowdodger <6yearold@gmail.com>, Arnaud Lacombe , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:52:44 -0000 On 07/06/11 23:49, Oliver Pinter wrote: > On 7/6/11, Hartmann, O. wrote: >> On 07/06/11 21:36, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:18:35PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Steve Kargl >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 05:29:24PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: >>>>>> I use SCHED_ULE on all machines, since it is supposed to be performing >>>>>> better on multicore boxes, but there are lots of suggestions switching >>>>>> back to the old SCHED_4BSD scheduler. >>>>>> >>>>> If you are using MPI in numerical codes, then you want >>>>> to use SCHED_4BSD. ?I've posted numerous times about ULE >>>>> and its very poor performance when using MPI. >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2008-October/026375.html >>>>> >>>> [sarcasm] >>>> It is rather funny to see that the post you point out has generated >>>> exactly 0 meaningful follow-up then and as you mention later in this >>>> thread, the issue still remains today :-) >>>> [/sarcasm] >>>> >>> Apparently, you are privy to my private email exchanges >>> with jeffr. >>> >>> I'm also not sure why you're being sarcastic here. The >>> issue was and AFAIK still is a problem for anyone using >>> FreeBSD in a HPC cluster. ULE simply performs worse than >>> 4BSD. >>> >> Well, I know only very little people using FreeBSD within a HPC cluster >> or even for scientific purposes, except myself and some people around here. >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-September/thread.html#58537 The problem is not only related to desktop boxes, it involves servers with "big" hardware as well.