On 10/23/07, Josh Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I posted this to the stable mailing list, as I thought it was > pertinent there, but I think it will get better attention here. So I > apologize in advance for cross-posting if this is a faux pas. :) > > Anyway, in summary, ULE is about 5-6 % slower than 4BSD for two > workloads that I am sensitive to: building world with -j X, and ffmpeg > -threads X. Other benchmarks seem to indicate relatively equal > performance between the two. MySQL, on the other hand, is > significantly faster in ULE. > > I'm trying to understand why ffmpeg and buildworld are slower in ULE > than 4BSD, since it seems to me that ULE was supposed to be the better > scaling scheduler. > > Here is a link to the original thread on the stable mailing list: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-October/037379.html > > Remy replied with some interesting results for building world between > the two schedulers on an 8-way system. It seems that ULE suffers as > more threads/processes are thrown at it, at least it appears that way > from Remy's data. > > Does anyone have any additional performance tests I can run that might > help indicate where the deficiency is in the ULE scheduler? MySQL > performance is excellent, so I'm wondering if it was tuned to that > particular workload? > > I'm not sure if Remy subscribes to this list, so I am CC'ing him. Hope > you don't mind Remy :)
ULE is tuned towards providing cpu affinity compilation and evidently encoding are workloads that do not benefit from affinity. Before we conclude that it is slower, try building with -j5, -j6, j7. -Kip _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
