ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7

Josh Carroll josh.carroll at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 19:10:36 PDT 2007

> We can not ignore this performance bug, also I had found that ULE is
> slower than 4BSD when testing super-smack's update benchmark on my
> dual-core machine.

I actually saw improved performance with ULE over 4BSD for
super-smack. What were the parameters you used for your testing? These
were mine:

super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000
super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000

I ran them again to confirm (10 runs each, averaged):

super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000  :  55235.3
super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000  :  17029

super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000  :  65758.5
super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000  :  17366.7

So select-key is 19% faster!

The numbers I had from 6.2 (4BSD, with libmap.conf set up to map
libpthread to libthr):

select-key: 50177.34
update-select: 14598.61

So either way, RELENG_7 is faster than 6.2 for super-smack, at least
for me. And ULE here is quite a bit faster for select-key.


More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list