on 19/12/2011 19:46 Ivan Klymenko said the following: > В Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:16 +0200 > Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> пишет: > >> on 17/12/2011 19:33 George Mitchell said the following: >>> Summing up for the record, in my original test: >>> 1. It doesn't matter whether X is running or not. >>> 2. The problem is not limited to two or fewer CPUs. (It also >>> happens for me on a six-CPU system.) >>> 3. It doesn't require nCPU + 1 compute-bound processes, just nCPU. >>> >>> With nCPU compute-bound processes running, with SCHED_ULE, any other >>> process that is interactive (which to me means frequently waiting >>> for I/O) gets ABYSMAL performance -- over an order of magnitude >>> worse than it gets with SCHED_4BSD under the same conditions. >> >> I definitely do not see anything like this. >> Specifically: >> - with X >> - with 2 CPUs >> - with nCPU and/or nCPU + 1 compute-bound processes >> - with SCHED_ULE obviously :-) >> I do not get "abysmal" performance for I/O active tasks. >> >> Perhaps there is something specific that you would want me to run and >> measure. >> > > Well, share your experiences - what to do, what would the others were > fine with SCHED_ULE. ;)
I didn't have to do anything special, so I am at loss as what to share. It just works (tm) for me. Sorry. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
