From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 24 02:10:36 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8871716A419 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:10:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.234]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFBD13C49D for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:10:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so41130nzf for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:10:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=GErppc5Ovatpixno0NsdHtML0SMGVaRqszqOnCZlTEE=; b=jeLwGXzJHq20Un26pNXCo/rIHGdtbflJN53R56Mum95Smb4m79TQuRUu0r1kMSHIpLQy8842ykzsTCMEhFrW7I3dlkfa6qxPuOOVL2WQ/LC1PhBEEGSWIxkKKWIle83TUL9UgiBP4liPcfQ28HMb1hMohRMR4LKUkYX4GdjAHXY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lP7OQSepS2fC94+IE2R+65ztxZH1P/DykAhUWov4vB8traYRGZkfqcD8etkN4VQpsy/gRMwRuHnDK+64iFJcx+LOuZkR2tMT6yylx2zkNJNAHNd7x+CAiNZj5u/p+qgDru7PO9Rc+zK8xmaLCHhiWfmcg+uIZIFbwNrCDrHAPW8= Received: by 10.35.10.13 with SMTP id n13mr88670pyi.1193191825834; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.117.12 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710231910n4605e776gb7af0025ff1d0d9c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:10:25 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" To: "David Xu" In-Reply-To: <471E9F21.7090902@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <471E343C.2040509@FreeBSD.org> <471E9F21.7090902@freebsd.org> Cc: remy.nonnenmacher@activnetworks.com, Kris Kennaway , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:10:36 -0000 > 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