Re: Some initial postmark numbers from a dual-PIII+ATA, 4.x and 6.x

From: Jeremie Le Hen (jeremie_at_le-hen.org)
Date: 02/06/05

  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: Some initial postmark numbers from a dual-PIII+ATA, 4.x and 6.x" 
    Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:26:42 +0100
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>

    Hi Robert,

    > This would seem to place it closer to 4.x than 5.x -- possibly a property
    > of a lack of preemption. Again, the differences here are so small it's a
    > bit difficult to reason using them.

    Thanks for the result. I'm quite dubitative now : I thought this was
    a fact that RELENG_5 have worse performances than RELENG_4 for the
    moment, partly due to lack of micro-optimizations. There have been
    indeed numerous reports about weak performances on 5.x. Seeing your
    results, it appears that RELENG_4, RELENG_5 and CURRENT are in fact
    very close. What should we think then ? 

    -- 
Jeremie Le Hen
jeremie@le-hen.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: Some initial postmark numbers from a dual-PIII+ATA, 4.x and 6.x"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [PATCH]SELinux performance improvement by RCU (Re: RCU issue with SELinux)
      ... >> you meant to switch the order there. ... I don't move the rcu_read_lockbecause of the possibility of preemption ... It's the reason that I didn't move rcu_read_lockat this point, ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [patch 2.6.24-rc2 1/3] generic gpio -- gpio_chip support
      ... spinlocks disable preemption as well; ... processes which the user has explicitly set to a higher priority. ... If you don't disable preemption then you don't have to ... a huge reason not to move it into mainline. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: preemption stable under 5.3?
      ... >>Thanks for your reply, okay, then i'd like to enable preemption. ... >>PREEMPTION would suffice to enable it i guess? ... >helps your environment and appears stable, there should be no reason not ... >processing as well as packet processing. ...
      (freebsd-stable)