Josh Carroll wrote:
In general, if you are running a multi-process or multi-threaded
workload, FreeBSD 7 will be able to make good use of 8 CPU cores.

Over the past 2 years we have done extensive benchmarking and
optimizations that have resulted in *huge* performance improvements on
many common workloads on 8-core systems.  FreeBSD 7 is now regularly
outperforming Linux on the workloads we have compared.  In the near
future we will be widening our scope to 16 core systems as well as
investigating more benchmarks as we find them.

Isn't the default scheduler still 4BSD on -CURRENT? Is ULE considered
stable on SMP systems now, and does it really outperform 4BSD? If so,
will it be set as the default scheduler once 7.0 is released?

Yes, 4BSD is still the default, although you definitely want to use ULE for performance reasons (NB: only on 7, dont use ULE on 6). I don't know whether the release engineers plan to change that default, but I will check.

The P965 chipset boards will support the Q6600 and many of them will
support Penryn when it comes out (the 45nm based true quad core Intel
CPU). I have an Asus P5B and a Q6600 running at 3.4 GHz on 6.2-RELEASE
and it screams (8:20 to build world with make -j8, for example). So
even 6.2 will take good advantage of the 4 cores, and I imagine it'll
only get better when 7.0 is released. I'd just avoid the bleeding edge
motherboards/chipsets.

JFYI, buildworld is a really bad benchmark for testing SMP performance in general (on 4 cpus it is not too bad), because the makefiles are not written to efficiently parallelize builds on many CPUs, so large parts end up running with only a single make job at a time.

Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to