[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: ULE vs. 4BSD scheduler benchmarks Ivan Voras Fri Feb 03 05:14:03 2012

On 28/01/2012 23:40, Florian Smeets wrote:

The conclusion right now seems to be that ULE is faster for database

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.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"