CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck?

[Florian Smeets]

On 20.08.12 10:32, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/15/2012 03:18, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>
>> It is quite pointless to speculate without real info like mentioned
>> above KTR_SCHED traces.
> 
> I'm sorry, you're quite wrong about that. In the cases I mentioned, and
> in about 2 out of 3 of the cases where users reported problems and I
> suggested that they try 4BSD, the results were clear. This obviously
> points out that there is a serious problem with ULE, and if I were the
> one who was responsible for that code I would be looking at ways of
> helping users figure out where the problems are. But that's just me.
> 
>> Main thing I've learned about schedulers, things
>> there never work as you expect. There are two many factors are relations
>> to predict behavior in every case.
> 
> In the web hosting case that I mentioned, I purposely kept every other
> factor consistent; and changed only s/ULE/4BSD/. The results were both
> clear and consistent.
> 

Can you please prove that with some actual numbers? I seem to recall you
posted something not too long ago but i was unable to find that right now.

Also can you tell us what you ran and how. I would really like to
reproduce this.

Thanks,
Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20120821/98b05e85/signature.pgp