> 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): 4BSD: super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000 : 55235.3 super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000 : 17029 ULE: 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. Josh _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
