Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:21:08 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Hugo Silva <hugo@barafranca.com>, Michael Vince <mv@thebeastie.org> Subject: Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark Message-ID: <200607040621.08886.davidxu@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <44A96485.4030604@rogers.com> References: <44A894B0.3010506@barafranca.com> <44A935C7.3070605@thebeastie.org> <44A96485.4030604@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 02:40, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Michael Vince wrote: > > HTT was Intels best early stab to help path the way for their multi > > core technologies to come into use as quickly as possible for the > > masses over just the server end. > > Exactly, thats why i wouldn't spend too much time bothering with HTT. It > was a transitional technology for multi core CPUs, which are now the > standard. It will be interesting how the new Conroe processors fair on > FreeBSD, the early benchmarks show better performance than AMDs offerings. For conroe, google the "fair-cache", you may find what should be done in scheduler, that's one of many reasons why I was saying libpthread should be stopped. Unless conroe is very special and does not need this work.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607040621.08886.davidxu>