20.11.2012 23:03, Mike Jakubik wrote:
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config,
but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting.
And they
are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2.
Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing worse than Linux and
Dragonfly BSD. I wonder why that is.
Lemme cross post this a little to see what people think.
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.html
Graphs are available as PDF attachments
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0002.pdf
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121010/7996ff88/attachment-0003.pdf
These numbers show very significant improvements. Any
possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this too
much work? I know many have and still complain about our current scheduler.
That's a no go. In short DragonFly was sprung off long ago because Matt
Dillon preferred the other way of working with multiple CPUs. From my
point of view DragonFly kernel architecture is much closer to
Singularity and Barrelfish.
--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
_______________________________________________
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"
