From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 15 02:52:51 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE232106566C for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:52:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB4B8FC16 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:52:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-24-94-75-93.hawaii.res.rr.com [24.94.75.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m2F2qjua003560; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:52:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:54:00 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: Rong-en Fan In-Reply-To: <6eb82e0803140947q1d6b0fa3kc8eac475263a5c74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080314164730.F1091@desktop> References: <200803121605.m2CG5Z6q052120@lurza.secnetix.de> <6eb82e0803140947q1d6b0fa3kc8eac475263a5c74@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Oliver Fromme , Christopher Sean Hilton , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SchedULE vs BSD scheduler - Was: HP ProLiant DL360 G5 success stories? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:52:51 -0000 On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Rong-en Fan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Christopher Sean Hilton > wrote: >> >> On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Oliver Fromme wrote: >> >> > >> > Those machines work very well with both FreeBSD 6 and 7. >> > If you install FreeBSD 7, remember to enable ULE instead >> > of the default BSD scheduler. >> > >> >> What's the advantage of ULE / disadvantage of the default? Is it >> specific to this hardware? > > It gives you better performance. You may want to check Kris's slides > > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20and%20beyond.pdf We have found a couple of small performance problems since 7.0 in ULE that will be addressed for 7.1. ULE in CURRENT has already diverged too seriously to backport entirely. In general you'll get better performance for things like databases, network servers, etc. However, you may not get better performance for buildworld/kernel, or user-space heavy computationally intensive things like setiathome. Since the fixes that are going into 7.1 (not yet in RELENG_7), I do not believe we've found a workload where 4BSD outperforms ULE by more than a couple of percent if that. And there are many where ULE wins by over 30%. It was not made default for 7.0 because the stability came too late. It ended up being plenty stable so we recommend users try it now. We just didn't have enough experience with it at the time. Thanks, Jeff > > Regards, > Rong-En Fan > >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >