Re: ULE vs. 4BSD scheduler benchmarks
Ivan Voras <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.performance |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 28/01/2012 23:40, Florian Smeets wrote: > The conclusion right now seems to be that ULE is faster for database > workload, I've done the same benchmarks with Bullet Cache last year and 4BSD is *ridiculously* inefficient and slow for this specific workload which involves a lot of inter-thread and inter-process communications. The results were somewhere in the ratio of 1:10 in favor of ULE. >but for strongly CPU-bound workloads 4BSD can be a better > choice. I can provide KTR traces and/or schedgraph output for cases > where 4BSD is better than ULE. Can you try manually bind processes to CPUs with the CPU-heavy benchmark? This could be a bit hard if you use the regular pbzip2 because it spawns threads, but if you manually spawn 8 CPU-bound processes (with cpuset(1)) in parallel and measure that, it would be useful. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"