ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0, buildkernel & thanks.

[Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri]

On 7/17/07, Attilio Rao <attilio at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 2007/7/17, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri <almarrie at gmail.com>:
> > On 7/17/07, Jeff Roberson <jroberson at chesapeake.net> wrote:
> > > With regards to buildkernel times;  I do not want to sacrafice performance
> > > on other benchmarks to improve buildkernel.  The problem is that 4BSD is
> > > as agressive as possible at scheduling work on idle cores.  This behavior
> > > that helps one buildworld hurts on other, in my opinion, more important
> > > benchmarks.
> > >
> > > For example: http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/sysbench.png
> > >
> > > ULE is 33% faster than SCHED_4BSD at this mysql test.  This is a direct
> > > result of prefering to idle to make more efficient scheduling decisions.
> > > ULE is also faster at various networking benchmarks for similar reasons.
> > >
> > > I also believe that while the real time may be slower on buildworld the
> > > system and user time will be smaller by a degree greater than the delta in
> > > real time.  This means that while you're building packages you have a
> > > little more cpu time leftover to handle other tasks.  Furthermore, as the
> > > number of cores goes up things start to tip in favor of ULE although this
> > > is somewhat because it's harder for even 4BSD to keep them busy due to
> > > disk bandwidth.
> > >
> > > Thanks everyone for testing.  Can someone confirm that they have tested
> > > with x86 rather than amd64?  I will probably commit later today.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jeff
> >
> > Did you compare it to latest Linux fixes? is FreeBSD + ULE + MySQL
> > still faster than linux?
>
> Just look at the link Jeff posted, it seems very well explaining :).
>
> Attilio

heh I love it!

When I checked last time, Linux took it over, I'm glad to see FreeBSD
is the leader now again!


-- 
Regards,

-Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri
Arab Portal
http://www.WeArab.Net/