runs, as long as data is in teh case. The cache
size is irrelevant.
Some CPUs have shared cache between cores, some don't. The ULE scheduler
takes this into account, the 4BSD does not. Even if the ULE scheduler
takes the CPU topology into consideration, if you only have two cores
.
Some CPUs have shared cache between cores, some don't. The ULE scheduler
takes this into account, the 4BSD does not. Even if the ULE scheduler
takes the CPU topology into consideration, if you only have two cores,
it is almost guaranteed that processes will be switched between both,
because
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:06:26PM +0200, wrote:
At Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:23:44 -0700,
Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:01, wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
Did
?? ?? momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
I compiled the same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler today and it seems
that the processes jump accross cores too.
What exactly is the problem that you're seeing? Do you have
performance problems? If so, then they're probably *not*
caused by processes
At Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:11:36 +0200 (CEST),
Oliver Fromme wrote:
?? ?? momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
I compiled the same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler today and it seems
that the processes jump accross cores too.
What exactly is the problem that you're seeing? Do you have
. The only difference is cache contents, but the
first-level-caches are usually too small anyway. The ULE
scheduler takes a lot of information into account when making
the decision, including cache affinity (the 4BSD scheduler
doesn't know about that at all).
All of that happens several hundreds
again. In this moment,
it does not matter at all on which core it is going to be
executed. The only difference is cache contents, but the
first-level-caches are usually too small anyway. The ULE
scheduler takes a lot of information into account when making
the decision, including cache affinity
At Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:23:44 -0700,
Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:01, Момчил Иванов wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
Did you ever try this? Did it help?
I compiled the same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler today and it
On 06/06/2012 18:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:01, Момчил Иванов wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
Did you ever try this? Did it help?
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Momchil Ivanov momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
At Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:54:15 +0200,
Martin Sugioarto wrote:
[1 text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)]
Am Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:01:07 +0200
schrieb Момчил Иванов momc...@xaxo.eu:
Is there some remedy?
Hi,
I
Am Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:04:12 +0200
schrieb Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com:
My t61p also had overheating problems with fbsd, but never in linux.
For me the fan control was somewhat broken: I had to turn off
auto-mode and set max myself to get any heavy usage out of it.
You might want to
Did anyone ever file a PR for this kind of thing?
Adrian
On 8 June 2012 10:07, Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com wrote:
Am Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:04:12 +0200
schrieb Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com:
My t61p also had overheating problems with fbsd, but never in linux.
For me the fan
reading all the papers about the ULE scheduler and the
source code, I would like to as a simple question: is it that stupid?
maybe, maybe not. It could be that the difference is minor as the cache for
both kernels is in the same chip.
I mean, there are just 2 processes running (except of top
Hi,
On 07 June 2012 10:16:07 Momchil Ivanov wrote:
At Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:12:55 +0700,
Erich wrote:
I've repeated the same experiment just now, setting both processes on
both cores with cpuset. The temperature got to about 72-74 C, so the
two small pieces of dirt that came out, the fresh
On 07.06.12 11:16, Momchil Ivanov wrote:
Though, it was strange seeing both processes hopping around... I will
probably go back to the 4BSD scheduler if my laptop does another
self-shutdown in the next few days as Doug suggested.
You never run just two processes on FreeBSD, ever. The kernel
Am Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:01:07 +0200
schrieb Момчил Иванов momc...@xaxo.eu:
Is there some remedy?
Hi,
I remember this series, I've had a T60p and when I compiled world, I
placed a fan in front of it to cool it down from 100°C. The difference
with T60p was that it simply shut off reaching 101°C.
At Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:54:15 +0200,
Martin Sugioarto wrote:
[1 text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)]
Am Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:01:07 +0200
schrieb Момчил Иванов momc...@xaxo.eu:
Is there some remedy?
Hi,
I remember this series, I've had a T60p and when I compiled world, I
placed a fan
at the
temperature. It was constantly increasing from about 33 C. I took a
look at top and saw that both processes were wildly jumping accross
the cores, i.e. CPU0 and CPU1.
So before reading all the papers about the ULE scheduler and the
source code, I would like to as a simple question
On 06/06/2012 18:01, Момчил Иванов wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To
Hi,
On 07 June 2012 3:01:07 Момчил Иванов wrote:
temperature. It was constantly increasing from about 33 C. I took a
look at top and saw that both processes were wildly jumping accross
the cores, i.e. CPU0 and CPU1.
So before reading all the papers about the ULE scheduler and the
source
In fact nice is a very simple program. It only changes the
priority value of a process in a POSIX-compliant way.
There is no need to change or adapt it; it still works fine
in the SMP world and with new schedulers. It's up to the
scheduler to interpret and handle the priority values of
Jordi Espasa Clofent jespa...@minibofh.org wrote:
I've realized that the nice(1) code hasn't been modified for a long time
(last code change seems from 4 years ago according the sources).
¿Is the nice(1) behaviour the expected? I mean, ¿Has been the ULE
scheduler adapted to nice(1
HI all,
I've realized that the nice(1) code hasn't been modified for a long time
(last code change seems from 4 years ago according the sources).
¿Is the nice(1) behaviour the expected? I mean, ¿Has been the ULE
scheduler adapted to nice(1) command or not?
nice(1) is a very old command
I see this is the standard recommendation for those of us using SMP. I am
wondering how far away we are from that becoming standard, since on even
amd64, I see the older scheduler is still in place?
Brian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this is the standard recommendation for those of us using SMP. I am
wondering how far away we are from that becoming standard, since on even
amd64, I see the older scheduler is still in place?
I believe the current plan is
Brian wrote:
I see this is the standard recommendation for those of us using SMP. I
am wondering how far away we are from that becoming standard, since on
even amd64, I see the older scheduler is still in place?
It *is* the default scheduler for RELENG_7 and -HEAD for most architectures.
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:55, Kris Kennaway wrote:
This being mysql, the number of processors isn't going to matter
much, no matter how many connections you have. Mysql doesn't scale
very well to multiple cpu's.
This might be standard dogma, but it also appears not to be true:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:55, Steven Hartland wrote:
Alban Hertroys wrote:
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Being a troll?
I don't troll, I'm not like that.
I have a problem with how mysql often gets falsely marketed as the
fastest database. The subject just pushed the right buttons, sorry
about
You can view my benchmark here:
https://manuelmartini.it/bench/mysql/
m.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Martin wrote:
You can view my benchmark here:
https://manuelmartini.it/bench/mysql/
Interesting results. The performance improvements talked about at
http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/6268.html#cutid1 are not yet included
in 7-current so the results might improve :)
signature.asc
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:42:06PM -0400, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:47:29PM +0100, Martin wrote:
You can view my benchmark here:
https://manuelmartini.it/bench/mysql/
Can you add links your kernel config file for
each configuration you tested?
It looks like
Il giorno Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:42:06 -0400
Craig Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:47:29PM +0100, Martin wrote:
You can view my benchmark here:
https://manuelmartini.it/bench/mysql/
Can you add links your kernel config file for
each configuration you
Il giorno Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:57:57 -0400
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:42:06PM -0400, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:47:29PM +0100, Martin wrote:
You can view my benchmark here:
https://manuelmartini.it/bench/mysql/
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Il giorno Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:42:06 -0400
Craig Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:47:29PM +0100, Martin wrote:
You can view my benchmark here:
https://manuelmartini.it/bench/mysql/
Can you
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:19:08PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Also some more discussion would be useful, e.g. you appear to be
testing on different machines so the most important thing to
understand is how, or whether, the hardware differs. You do link to
the dmesgs, but it's hard to process
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Martin wrote:
I use GENERIC kernel file for 6.2
and GENERIC on 7 and I removed WITNESS
You did not remove WITNESS in all your configs.
I see this message:
WARNING: WITNESS option enabled, expect reduced performance.
in the dmesg output of two of your
On Mar 13, 2007, at 22:45, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I used sql-bench
/usr/ports/databases/mysql50-server/work/mysql-5.0.33/sql-bench/
(at this time)
the default Makefile of port have --without-bench options so u
need
to make manually
Hmm. This seems to be a single-user test, so while it's
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:27:22AM +0100, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 22:45, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I used sql-bench
/usr/ports/databases/mysql50-server/work/mysql-5.0.33/sql-bench/
(at this time)
the default Makefile of port have --without-bench options so u
need
to make
Alban Hertroys wrote:
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Being a troll?
This being mysql, the number of processors isn't going to matter
much, no matter how many connections you have. Mysql doesn't scale
very well to multiple cpu's.
You seem to have been paying no attention at all to any of the
latency timer' in the BIOS -- from
the minimum of 32 to the maximum of 360. Same problems.
Then, finally, I decided to give the ULE-scheduler a try -- and things
seem to work just fine (with polling enabled on the interface)...
The dump has completed -- in 7 hours or so...
Could this (failure
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:14:50PM +0100, Rene Ladan wrote:
Hi,
I was trying the ULE scheduler again on my single i686 5.4PRE laptop,
but it causes the kernel to freeze after some time (=30 minutes): the
kernel does not even respond to opening/closing the lid when booting
verbose (normally
Hi,
I was trying the ULE scheduler again on my single i686 5.4PRE laptop,
but it causes the kernel to freeze after some time (=30 minutes): the
kernel does not even respond to opening/closing the lid when booting
verbose (normally it displays acpi_lid0: Lid {opened|closed}).
Having some disk
Hello to all,
I'm runinng RELENG_5 and I noticed that ULE scheduler is broken.
Shouldn't this be documented in UPDATING?
Thanks very much,
Nuno Teixeira
--
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:21:02PM +, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
Hello to all,
I'm runinng RELENG_5 and I noticed that ULE scheduler is broken.
Shouldn't this be documented in UPDATING?
Yes. I thought it was, but you are correct in asserting that it isn't.
Ceri
--
Only two things
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 04:21 pm, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
Hello to all,
I'm runinng RELENG_5 and I noticed that ULE scheduler is broken.
Shouldn't this be documented in UPDATING?
Thanks very much,
Nuno Teixeira
It's documented in errata:
(1 Nov 2004) The ULE scheduler
has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to use ULE
was completely removed from the 5.3 or even the RELENG_5 branch? So, is
ULE really available?
Not in RELENG_5 and not in RELENG_5_3
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to use ULE
was completely removed from the 5.3 or even the RELENG_5 branch? So, is
ULE really
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:08AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to use ULE
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:08AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:29:08 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to use ULE
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:08AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option
On Thursday, 11. November 2004 16:42, Ronald Klop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:29:08 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read
52 matches
Mail list logo
