Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:58:26 -0700 (PDT) From: youshi10@u.washington.edu To: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0707171058260.17139@hymn01.u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <b41c75520707170636u116aa48fr99dfacc11945c922@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Claus Guttesen wrote: >> > sched_ule: >> > >> > -j 3 buildkernel: 13:23 >> > -j 4 buildkernel: 12:38 >> > -j 5 buildkernel: 12:41 >> > -j 6 buildkernel: 12:47 >> > >> > sched_4bsd: >> > -j 3 buildkernel: 11:43 >> > -j 4 buildkernel: 12:02 >> > >> > So sched_ule seems to handle more processes slightly better than 4bsd >> > albeit it does it slower. ule's sweet spot is -j 4 and 4bsd is -j 3. >> > >> >> 4bsd vs ULE >> >> -j 3 buildkernel: 11:43 vs -j 3 buildkernel: 13:23 >> >> -j 4 buildkernel: 12:02 vs -j 4 buildkernel: 12:38 >> >> >> ULE is always slower? > > In my case yes. > > -- > regards > Claus > > When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, > the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. > > Shakespeare Sorry to say, but last year's Xeons were very lackluster in terms of capability/performance, and there were rumors flying around that the Conroes (desktop chips) fared better than the 1st gen Woodcrest (?) chips :(.. That's changed in the later Xeons though =\.. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.43.0707171058260.17139>