Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:40:50 +0900 (JST) From: NAKATA Maho <chat95@mac.com> To: kris@obsecurity.org Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which SCHED_ for DB server Message-ID: <20050907.124050.21851139.chat95@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20050906000016.GA91835@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <4316A5BC.1000405@meijome.net> <b41c7552050901015317d5942e@mail.gmail.com> <20050906000016.GA91835@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In Message-ID: <20050906000016.GA91835@xor.obsecurity.org> Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 10:53:39AM +0200, Claus Guttesen wrote: > > > I'm building a server that will run PostgreSQL with a database > > > containing several 10s of million records. The only things happening on > > > this box will be the SQL processes and other processes to parse raw data > > > and load into the DB. Users = a few connections via HTTP from an > > > intranet server (not more than 5 concurrently). > > > > > > I was wondering what is the best SCHED_ to set in the kernel. > > > I currently have SCHED_4BSD but was wondering if _ULE would be better > > > for this > > > > For prod. use I would recommend SCHED_4BSD atm. The 4BSD-scheduler > > does seem to be more stable on SMP and up. > > ULE might be OK on SMP with 6.0 and above, but performance seems to be > a bit lower than 4BSD in my tests. Try it yourself and see which is > better. I tried different matter, but my result shows: for 5.4-RELEASE, ule is 1.5 times slower than 4bsd. See also PR: 85820 for details. thanks! -- NAKATA, Maho (maho@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050907.124050.21851139.chat95>