> 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 mi
Kris Kennaway wrote:
One major difference is that your workload is 100% user. Also you were
reporting ULE had more idle time, which looks like a bug since I would
expect it be basically 0% idle on such a workload.
Kris
We can not ignore this performance bug, also I had found that ULE is
sl
I decided to do some testing of concurrent processes (rather than a
single process that's multi-threaded). Specifically, I ran 4 ffmpeg
(without the -threads option) commands at the same time. The
difference was less than a percent:
4bsd: 439.92 real 1755.91 user 1.08 sys
ule:
> My next step is to run some transcodes with mencoder to see if it has
> similar performance between the two schedulers. When I have those
> results, I'll post them to this thread.
mencoder is linked against the same libx264 library that ffmpeg uses
for h.264 encoding, so I was expecting similar
On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Josh Carroll wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Here are the results of running f
> Just curious, but are these results obtained while you are
> overclocking your 2.4ghz CPU to 3.4ghz? That might be a useful
> datapoint.
Yes they are with the CPU overclocked. I have verified the results
when not overclocked as well (running at stock).
> It also might be useful to know what s
> 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.
Here are the results of running ffmpeg with 4 through 8 threads on
both schedulers:
4 threads
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 ab
Josh Carroll 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
workload
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
