On 28/01/2012 23:40, Florian Smeets wrote:
The conclusion right now seems to be that ULE is faster for database workload,
I've done the same benchmarks with Bullet Cache last year and 4BSD is *ridiculously* inefficient and slow for this specific workload which involves a lot of inter-thread and inter-process communications. The results were somewhere in the ratio of 1:10 in favor of ULE.
but for strongly CPU-bound workloads 4BSD can be a better choice. I can provide KTR traces and/or schedgraph output for cases where 4BSD is better than ULE.
Can you try manually bind processes to CPUs with the CPU-heavy benchmark? This could be a bit hard if you use the regular pbzip2 because it spawns threads, but if you manually spawn 8 CPU-bound processes (with cpuset(1)) in parallel and measure that, it would be useful.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
