From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 14:28:36 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDA0106564A; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel@digsys.bg) Received: from smtp-sofia.digsys.bg (smtp-sofia.digsys.bg [193.68.3.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D788FC18; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.100.59] (varna2.digsys.bg [193.68.0.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-sofia.digsys.bg (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBFDwgXO002173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:58:48 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from daniel@digsys.bg) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Daniel Kalchev In-Reply-To: <20111215134853.GA24753@icarus.home.lan> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:58:44 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0C72D682-CF5E-42D6-91F3-FEF1AB02F5D6@digsys.bg> References: <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215134853.GA24753@icarus.home.lan> To: Jeremy Chadwick X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: Adrian Chadd , "Samuel J. Greear" , Current FreeBSD , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:28:36 -0000 On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: [=85] > That said: thrown out, data ignored, done. >=20 > Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two > ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and > SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is an issue, other than > some folks confirming that SCHED_4BSD performs better for them (that's > what started this whole thread), and there are at least a couple which > have stated this. But, are any of these benchmarks really engaging the 4BSD/ULE scheduler = differences? Most such benchmarks are run on a system with no other load = whatsoever and in no way represent real world experience. What is more, I believe in such benchmarks "the system feels sluggish" = is not measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the = benchmark finishes "better" - that is, faster, or say, makes the system = freeze for the user for the duration of the test -- it will be = considered "win", because the benchmark suite ran faster on that = particular system -- whereas a system which ran the benchmark fast, = provided good interactive response etc would be considered "loser". I think it is not good idea to hijack this thread, but instead focusing = on the other SCHED_ULE bashing thread to define an reasonable benchmark = or a set of benchmarks rather -- so that many would run it and provide = feedback. Daniel=