From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 25 06:33:52 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294B516A403 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:33:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cokane@mail.cokane.org) Received: from ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com (ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com [24.93.47.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83F313C4A8 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:33:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cokane@mail.cokane.org) Received: from ramen.cokane.org (rrcs-24-153-184-158.sw.biz.rr.com [24.153.184.158]) by ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1P5mRUi019090 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:48:28 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 33918 invoked by uid 1001); 25 Feb 2007 05:47:55 -0000 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:47:55 +0000 From: Coleman Kane To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20070225054755.GA33858@ramen.coleyandcheryl> References: <20070224213111.GB41434@xor.obsecurity.org> <346a80220702242100i7ec22b5h4b25cc7d20d03e98@mail.gmail.com> <20070225054120.GA47059@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070225054120.GA47059@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Cc: smp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:33:52 -0000 On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:41:20AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote, and it was proclaimed: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:00:35PM -0700, Coleman Kane wrote: > > > What does the performance curve look like for the in-CVS 7-CURRENT tree with > > 4BSD or ULE ? How do those stand up against the Linux SMP scheduler for > > scalability. It would be nice to see the comparison displayed to see what > > the performance improvements of the aforementioned patch were realized to. > > This would likely be a nice graphics for the SMPng project page, BTW... > > There are graphs of this on Jeff's blog, referenced in that URL. > Fixing filedesc locking makes a HUGE difference. > > Kris Thanks. I saw that shortly after I sent the email... /me stupid. How stable is ULE now since the recent swath of rewrites in the past months? -- coleman