Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Kris Kennaway
Oliver Herold wrote: OpenBSD isn't about performance, so it will be most of the time inferior. http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2007/09/28/0014.html Maybe this is of some help. But if compare it to Jeffs FreeBSD/Linux benches it looks rather strange to me. Yeah, that's the one I am talk

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Kris Kennaway
Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: On 9/29/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oliver Herold wrote: Are there any numbers or technical papers? Just out of curiosity. I ran a mysql benchmark against Dragonfly-current and FreeBSD 7 on an 8-core machine (one of the workloads that FreeBSD

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Oliver Herold
OpenBSD isn't about performance, so it will be most of the time inferior. http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2007/09/28/0014.html Maybe this is of some help. But if compare it to Jeffs FreeBSD/Linux benches it looks rather strange to me. Cheers, Oliver On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 08:08:53PM +03

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri
On 9/29/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Herold wrote: > > Are there any numbers or technical papers? Just out of curiosity. > > I ran a mysql benchmark against Dragonfly-current and FreeBSD 7 on an > 8-core machine (one of the workloads that FreeBSD now performs very well > at

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Oliver Herold
Thanks :-) Cheers, Oliver On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 06:45:20PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Oliver Herold wrote: >> Are there any numbers or technical papers? Just out of curiosity. > > I ran a mysql benchmark against Dragonfly-current and FreeBSD 7 on an > 8-core machine (one of the workloads

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Kris Kennaway
Oliver Herold wrote: Are there any numbers or technical papers? Just out of curiosity. I ran a mysql benchmark against Dragonfly-current and FreeBSD 7 on an 8-core machine (one of the workloads that FreeBSD now performs very well at) and found 0 scaling on dragonfly. Their developers confirm

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Oliver Herold
Are there any numbers or technical papers? Just out of curiosity. Cheers, Oliver On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote: > RW wrote: > >> The FreeBSD response was to make the kernel more SMP friendly with >> finer-grained locking, and to bring-in the ULE scheduler. Dragonf

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-29 Thread Kris Kennaway
RW wrote: The FreeBSD response was to make the kernel more SMP friendly with finer-grained locking, and to bring-in the ULE scheduler. Dragonfly BSD was a fork off 4.x by people who thought a more radical kernel rewrite was needed. Their kernel avoids a lot of the locking problems by using messa

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-24 Thread RW
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:23:40 -0400 "Jim Stapleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've heard a lot of winging about the FreeBSD scheduler from Linux > people, and even saw that is the reason for one fork off of FreeBSD. > > In my experience, I've gotten better performance out of FreeBSD on > single

Re: Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-24 Thread Bill Moran
In response to "Jim Stapleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've heard a lot of winging about the FreeBSD scheduler from Linux > people, and even saw that is the reason for one fork off of FreeBSD. > > In my experience, I've gotten better performance out of FreeBSD on > single or multi-CPU systems than

Questions on the scheduler

2007-09-24 Thread Jim Stapleton
I've heard a lot of winging about the FreeBSD scheduler from Linux people, and even saw that is the reason for one fork off of FreeBSD. In my experience, I've gotten better performance out of FreeBSD on single or multi-CPU systems than I have out of Linux or Windows (or really any other system).