From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 18 16:41:35 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE812106566C
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:41:35 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from nec556@retena.com)
Received: from resmaa13.ono.com (smtp13.ono.com [62.42.230.16])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC958FC12
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:41:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from GogPortatil.retena.com (85.219.71.186) by resmaa13.ono.com
	(8.5.113) (authenticated as nec556@retena.com)
	id 4E5EF2B000CD95C0 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org;
	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5EF2B000CD95C0@> (added by postmaster@resmaa13.ono.com)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:33 +0200
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
From: Eduardo Morras <nec556@retena.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111018184539.63b49134@nonamehost.>
References: <4E9D4124.9000307@eenet.ee>
	<12913.3257120431$1318938804@news.gmane.org>
	<4E9D7880.1030308@FreeBSD.org>
	<20111018162609.1319eb44@nonamehost.>
	<4E9D8747.4020104@FreeBSD.org>
	<4e9d8ab4.c89aec0a.4216.ffffd1efSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
	<CAJ-VmonNkTAzp1Ok3TFQ4b=cjJ5JFdRG4Ymuvvu5f_-zWcj9eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111018182400.25676e8e@nonamehost.>
	<4E9D9B8E.7030407@unsane.co.uk>
	<20111018184539.63b49134@nonamehost.>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 10.0.1411 [1522/3959]
Subject: Re: ffmpeg & ULE
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:41:35 -0000

At 17:45 18/10/2011, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
>=D0=92 Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:30:22 +0100
>Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
>
> > On 18/10/2011 16:24, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> > > =D0=92 Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:02:47 +0800
> > > Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
> > >
> > >> What is FBFS?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Adrian
> > > :)
> > > http://rudot.blog.com/
> > or
> > http://wiki.freebsd.org/RudolfTomori/rudotSoC2011
> >
> > The blog entry was interesting in that it gives some context to the 2
> > images you previously posted as does the wiki entry.
> >
> > Vince
>
>they are very different four images - made on different systems
>Forgive me for offtopic :(

I think it's on topic. Andriy Gapon requested any=20
facts that demostrates or shows examples when ULE=20
scheduler is not so good than others. The images=20
shows how the 3 schedulers performs with the same=20
workload when number of cores is changed. Perhaps=20
it's not a scientific and statistically valid=20
but, for me, it shows when is ULE under other schedulers.

Also, some people has asked and pointed about=20
using 4BSD and not ULE in 8.x because it works=20
better for some type of workload.