Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:18:35 -0400 From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, arrowdodger <6yearold@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds Message-ID: <CACqU3MVLr5VXRovs1uV%2BzHazJi2rrjE9Sp3XzsCPJ0Un06pmDQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110706162811.GA68436@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <4E1421D9.7080808@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CALH631=F4bSgNDE4w0qcXGMgGxZRRwCP9n-H4M0c%2B1UEaqWr7Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E147F54.40908@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20110706162811.GA68436@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> 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. =A0I've posted numerous times about ULE > and its very poor performance when using MPI. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2008-October/026375.ht= ml > [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] - Arnaud
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACqU3MVLr5VXRovs1uV%2BzHazJi2rrjE9Sp3XzsCPJ0Un06pmDQ>