[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0
- To: Claus Guttesen <kometen_(_at_)_gmail_(_dot_)_com>
- Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0
- From: youshi10_(_at_)_u_(_dot_)_washington_(_dot_)_edu
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: current_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Claus Guttesen wrote:
> -j 3 buildkernel: 13:23
> -j 4 buildkernel: 12:38
> -j 5 buildkernel: 12:41
> -j 6 buildkernel: 12:47
> -j 3 buildkernel: 11:43
> -j 4 buildkernel: 12:02
> So sched_ule seems to handle more processes slightly better than 4bsd
> albeit it does it slower. ule's sweet spot is -j 4 and 4bsd is -j 3.
4bsd vs ULE
-j 3 buildkernel: 11:43 vs -j 3 buildkernel: 13:23
-j 4 buildkernel: 12:02 vs -j 4 buildkernel: 12:38
ULE is always slower?
In my case yes.
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.
Sorry to say, but last year's Xeons were very lackluster in terms of capability/performance, and there were rumors flying around that the Conroes (desktop chips) fared better than the 1st gen Woodcrest (?) chips :(..
That's changed in the later Xeons though =\..
freebsd-current_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"
Visit your host, monkey.org