Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:58:36 +0200 From: Andreas Nilsson <andrnils@gmail.com> To: George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but ... Message-ID: <CAPS9%2BSuR=F2jCsp=%2BHvU3kaZvTtULZ5D%2BkX-1PZdmHd1RP1RSw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5394A848.7030609@m5p.com> References: <5394A848.7030609@m5p.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:15 PM, George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com> wrote: > When I run this command on 10-STABLE on a uniprocessor system while > running the misc/dnetc port: > > cd /usr/src > time make buildworld && time make buildkernel && time make installkernel > > On revision 266422 with SCHED_ULE, I get (showing the time lines only): > > 7045.988u 897.681s 4:00:33.89 55.0% 29430+492k 27927+17003io > 30943pf+519w > 1155.683u 149.422s 52:49.60 41.1% 25418+410k 7452+20843io > 12166pf+248w > 7.101u 4.838s 8:03.57 2.4% 5905+221k 1179+9461io 1345pf+67w > > On revision 267211 with SCHED_4BSD: > > 6950.087u 665.074s 2:40:36.19 79.0% 29929+502k 33651+17368io > 31151pf+151w > 1148.066u 134.312s 26:40.95 80.1% 26234+426k 9681+24613io > 11917pf+106w > 6.774u 4.369s 0:33.90 32.8% 3110+320k 1388+10979io 1514pf+3w > > Since the majority of my systems are uniprocessors and I like to > run dnetc, SCHED_ULE has been a dealbreaker for me since day one. > Consequently I can't use freebsd_update. > > The party line seems to be, "Well, everybody knows SCHED_ULE sucks > on uniprocessors." Hello? Not everybody has upgraded to multiple > core or hyperthreaded processors yet. Do we really want to write > off every uniprocessor piece of hardware out here? > Yes? Can you even buy a system today that is uniprocessor? My phone is a dual core thing, and it got written of because of its "meagre" hardware. Top of the line phones has 8 cores. So, seriously, what non-ancient system have you acquired that is uniprocessor? Please include links for available hardware for laptops, desktops or servers. /A > > The other assertion I hear is that SCHED_ULE really excels on some > unspecified workload or other. I'd love to see exactly how much > better it does than 4BSD on these mythological loads. -- George > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPS9%2BSuR=F2jCsp=%2BHvU3kaZvTtULZ5D%2BkX-1PZdmHd1RP1RSw>