Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:58:41 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: buildworld comparison stable vs current Message-ID: <20020219125840.B2835@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <200202170818.g1H8ID067573@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 12:18:13AM -0800 References: <200202170818.g1H8ID067573@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 17 February 2002 at 0:18:13 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Here are the results of a buildworld test building the -current > source tree on a SMP stable box and on a SMP current box. There was > some interest at BSDCon for a comparison just to see where we were. > Everything matches up except time and context switches, the context > switches I presume is because interrupts require context switches > in -current. > > The time difference is 1800 seconds (stable) verses 2219 seconds (current), > making stable 1.23 times faster then current at the moment. I consider > this a fairly good number for where we are, and to be expected > considering the lack of optimizations in current. Have you done any profiling? Also, how many CPUs are there? As I said on Friday, I really think we should be doing more performance measurements, including measuring what's going on at the lock level. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020219125840.B2835>