Hi Kamal,
I don't know about any switches for ULE. My point is that it's not particularly meaningful to compare a system that's built for SMP to one that isn't. There have been a number of tests (sorry, don't have time to dig them all out) of systems with MP locks against systems without on a uniprocessor machine. The systems with MP locks were all slower.
I remember a test done with Linux (2.4 IIRC) compiled with MP support and without; there were significant differences. Tests with Solaris x86 against Linux on a 1-processor machine also showed Solaris performing poorly. Use a proper MP box ("proper" meaning >= 4 CPUs) and the picture usually changes.
I'd be interested to see the same test done on a 4 CPU box.
Cheers, Gerald
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Gerald Heinig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Robert,
the benchmark you cited is for uniprocessor systems
only.
It says nothing about multiprocessor performance,
which is what FreeBSD is aiming for.
Doesn't the (ULE) scheduler have a switch to ensure that performance is optimal on a uniprocessor machine too?
It's comparing apples with oranges.
Cheers, Gerald
Netbsd works for upto 4 processors. So you should be
able to run the same tests on a quad-processor SMP
machine.
regards -kamal
Robert Ryan wrote:
Fellow FreeBSD developers,
I hate to say I told you but it was inevitable.
Check this out:
http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/
As I predicted more than a year ago FreeBSD 5.3
has
finally lost its only advantage: performance.
NetBSD
2.0 shows that when you write code the right way
and
end up with SOLUTIONS AND NOT HACKS you have a
system
that works, and works well on all platforms.
This is the consequence of a series of mistakes
made
by the FreeBSD developers, the most important
being
too arrogant and selfish to listen to Matt Dillon,
the
man that warned you all about this. What did he
get
in return? An expulsion from your gentlemen club.
Poul-Henning Kamp has been using FreeBSD to push
his
personal agenda, with completely useless features
such
as GEOM and devfs, instead of concentrating on the
real problem. The fact that your heavily mutexed system
doesn't work and never will.
Jeff Roberson's ULE is still broken but don't
worry,
Matt Dillon will be hacking a much better
scheduler
for DragonFly that you can later borrow.
Mike Smith warned you about committee-designed
code
years ago, why don't you listen? Why do you insist
on
this arrogant pose and on treating potential contributors like pariahs?
Why do you tolerate assholes like Dag-Erling and Poul-Henning?
I hope you can learn something from the NetBSD
people
before it's too late for FreeBSD. They managed to
do
much more with less resources. You should feel
ashamed
of yourselves.
Sincerely, Robert
PS: if I've offended anyone (yeah, I singled a few
out)
, prove me wrong, but spare me your insultedness. It's become a pathetic hobby in -core.
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
