Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:10:25 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> To: "David Xu" <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: remy.nonnenmacher@activnetworks.com, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710231910n4605e776gb7af0025ff1d0d9c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <471E9F21.7090902@freebsd.org> References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <471E343C.2040509@FreeBSD.org> <471E9F21.7090902@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We can not ignore this performance bug, also I had found that ULE is > slower than 4BSD when testing super-smack's update benchmark on my > dual-core machine. I actually saw improved performance with ULE over 4BSD for super-smack. What were the parameters you used for your testing? These were mine: super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000 super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000 I ran them again to confirm (10 runs each, averaged): 4BSD: super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000 : 55235.3 super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000 : 17029 ULE: super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000 : 65758.5 super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000 : 17366.7 So select-key is 19% faster! The numbers I had from 6.2 (4BSD, with libmap.conf set up to map libpthread to libthr): select-key: 50177.34 update-select: 14598.61 So either way, RELENG_7 is faster than 6.2 for super-smack, at least for me. And ULE here is quite a bit faster for select-key. Josh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cb6106e0710231910n4605e776gb7af0025ff1d0d9c>