Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:47:38 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Emanuel Strobl <Emanuel.strobl@gmx.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4BSD/ULE numbers... Message-ID: <20050926174738.GA57284@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200509261847.35558@harrymail> References: <200509261847.35558@harrymail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--AhhlLboLdkugWU4S Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 06:47:27PM +0200, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I tried ULE with BETA5 and for me it felt a bit sluggish when making port= s. > So I did some "realworld" simulation and compared 4BSD/ULE to see what=20 > numbers tell me. And the prooved my feeling right. > It seems that ULE is priorizing nice a little higher, but in general the= =20 > output of the 4 BSD machine is higher and finishing the tests took not so= =20 > long as with ULE, especially the "make configure" differs horribly. That's consistent with my testing. ULE seems a bit more stable now in 6.0 (except on my large SMP machines, which reboot spontaneously under moderate load), but it doesn't perform as well as 4BSD under real application workloads. Kris --AhhlLboLdkugWU4S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDODQ6Wry0BWjoQKURAqx5AKDHihESlAtreSNV4R2byMHh3KIYjACePbaC SpQIvzJAYqGepo6V+C+rac0= =GErx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AhhlLboLdkugWU4S--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050926174738.GA57284>