Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:10:25 -0400
We can not ignore this performance bug, also I had found that ULE is
slower than 4BSD when testing super-smack's update benchmark on my
dual-core machine.
I actually saw improved performance with ULE over 4BSD for
super-smack. What were the parameters you used for your testing? These
were mine:
super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000
super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000
I ran them again to confirm (10 runs each, averaged):
4BSD:
super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000 : 55235.3
super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000 : 17029
ULE:
super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 10000 : 65758.5
super-smack ./update-select.smack 10 10000 : 17366.7
So select-key is 19% faster!
The numbers I had from 6.2 (4BSD, with libmap.conf set up to map
libpthread to libthr):
select-key: 50177.34
update-select: 14598.61
So either way, RELENG_7 is faster than 6.2 for super-smack, at least
for me. And ULE here is quite a bit faster for select-key.
Josh
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Josh Carroll
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Kris Kennaway
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: David Xu
- ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Prev by Date: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Next by Date: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Previous by thread: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Next by thread: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|