ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
Hi, I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). when I last built 6-STABLE Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS or INVARIANTS turned on) Well time to rebuild the sources :) dwpc@ /home/duaneuname -a FreeBSD dwpc.dwlabs.ca 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #0: Fri Apr 28 18:41:15 ADT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DWPC-KERNEL i386 Best Regards, Duane Whitty -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
i remember when i first started using freebsd about 2 months ago, the first kernel i built, i did the ULE (at some articles recommendataion). but, ive not done it since. i guess i have been noticing a bit of lag on my system (amd 1800mhz 512rdram, u160 scsi raid0), but nothing unacceptable. however, since i didnt have a problem with my first kernel that i did, and your positive response, i decided to go ahead and change out the specified scheduler in my kernconf, and let 'er rip. is your system a desktop? were your prevously running the same desktop configuration on the same box, with the 4BSD? is the ULE scheduler suited for a server setup as well (my server is also SMP), or is this something that should be kept to a desktop? thanks, jonathan horne On Sunday 07 May 2006 04:43, Duane Whitty wrote: Hi, I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). when I last built 6-STABLE Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS or INVARIANTS turned on) Well time to rebuild the sources :) dwpc@ /home/duaneuname -a FreeBSD dwpc.dwlabs.ca 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #0: Fri Apr 28 18:41:15 ADT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DWPC-KERNEL i386 Best Regards, Duane Whitty ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 06:43:14AM -0300, Duane Whitty wrote: Hi, I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). when I last built 6-STABLE Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS or INVARIANTS turned on) FYI, in my testing ULE is faster under light workloads but quite a lot slower under heavy loads. It's not recommended, but YMMV. Kris pgppGBKH0ZlRx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
Jonathan Horne wrote: i remember when i first started using freebsd about 2 months ago, the first kernel i built, i did the ULE (at some articles recommendataion). but, ive not done it since. i guess i have been noticing a bit of lag on my system (amd 1800mhz 512rdram, u160 scsi raid0), but nothing unacceptable. however, since i didnt have a problem with my first kernel that i did, and your positive response, i decided to go ahead and change out the specified scheduler in my kernconf, and let 'er rip. is your system a desktop? were your prevously running the same desktop configuration on the same box, with the 4BSD? is the ULE scheduler suited for a server setup as well (my server is also SMP), or is this something that should be kept to a desktop? thanks, jonathan horne My system is a desktop and yes I was previously using the 4BSD scheduler. As for whether it is suited for a server environment I would say that depends. From what I understand it is an experimental scheduler meant to bring better performance to SMP machines but that UP machines may also show some improvement. If I was using this box as a server for mission critical applications there are a whole bunch of things I am doing now that I would not be doing. Before I would use any relatively new configuration on a production server I would have to do some reliability testing and benchmarking on a test machine that I had configured to test a particular harware/application mix. I would also be reading what other people had to say and I would first choose to use something that was known to generally work and for which issues were generally know and mostly understood. Also, go where the support is. :) This is basically a test box and a learning platform. There are way too many applications loaded on this machine and they are far too varied in nature for me to single out one aspect of my configuration and say whether or not it is suitable in a server configuration. In addition I wouldn't be able to say whether ULE is suitable for a server after testing it on hardware that is definitely not suitable as a server, in my opinion. I am willing to say that for desktop use the ULE scheduler --seems-- to work great. But do keep in mind Mr. Kennaway's comments per this thread. Of course the 4BSD scheduler works great so I wouldn't switch unless I had a reason to. --Duane On Sunday 07 May 2006 04:43, Duane Whitty wrote: Hi, I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). when I last built 6-STABLE Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS or INVARIANTS turned on) Well time to rebuild the sources :) dwpc@ /home/duaneuname -a FreeBSD dwpc.dwlabs.ca 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #0: Fri Apr 28 18:41:15 ADT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DWPC-KERNEL i386 Best Regards, Duane Whitty ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
