Re: BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- From: Kris Kennaway <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:09:41 -0400
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:36:55AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 05:48:17 Kris Kennaway wrote:
6.2 was used from CVS with libthr and the 4BSD scheduler (ULE 1.0 is
broken in 6.x).
just curious what is broken because I use ULE on several servers perfectly. it
seems to me that ULE is even faster on SMP when not having heavy load.
Also "calcru went backwards" issues I do not get with ULE but sporadically on
4BSD scheduler kernels, specially on dualcore cpus.
ULE on 6.x and is known to have severe performance problems in some
workloads, as well as bugs that cause it to crash. Use it at your own
peril :)
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- From: Kris Kennaway
- Re: BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- From: NOC Meganet
- BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- Prev by Date: Re: BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- Next by Date: Re: Call for testers, amd64 only, new scheduler. (fwd)
- Previous by thread: Re: BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- Next by thread: Re: BIND 9.4.1 performance on FreeBSD 6.2 vs. 7.0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
