Hi, I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. Beneath is one of them: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not? Bye, Mipam.
On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 13:07, Mipam wrote:> Hi, > > I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. > Beneath is one of them: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html > > Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not?You can now compile a kernel with options SCHED_ULE again. How well it works is for yourself to determine :-) (I've been using it on my UP machine here since yesterday only). -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050208/30157133/attachment.bin
Hello, I have been reading curiously about the ULE scheduler on the lists for quite some time without ever getting any clear good or bad feeling about it, so I thought it was about time to give it some real experience. I briefly tried it on my desktop about a year a go, and felt that everything was a bit "choppy". I currenty have several systems under testing, awaitng to go to production once I have time to finish other projects, and can get focus back to getting them ready. I've been trashing a dual Xeon 3.06GHz box running Apache2 (default port settings, default page) using two dual Xeon clients running webbench -c 300 -t -1 (300 processes per box). Running with 4BSD the server processed aprox. 400 requests at a time, my ssh shell was very slow, and I often had to wait for up to a minute for simple commands like "uptime" to return. Switching over to ULE improved things drastically. The server now serves aprox 580 pages at a time, and the ssh shell is as snappy as if the system was completely idle (even though the load is at 590 :-) ). Enabling DEVICE_POLLING as well, increases the number of concurrent sessions handled to aprox 600. I was surprised by the actual difference in system performance and usability between 4BSD and ULE under such loads! If you haven't tried it on your heavy trafic server yet, go and do it right now! :-) Regards, Frode Nordahl On Feb 8, 2005, at 13:07, Mipam wrote:> Hi, > > I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. > Beneath is one of them: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html > > Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not? > Bye, > > Mipam. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Simon Barner wrote:> Frode Nordahl wrote: > >>I was surprised by the actual difference in system >> performance and >>usability between 4BSD and ULE under such loads! >> >>If you haven't tried it on your heavy trafic server >>yet, go and do it >>right now! :-) > > > Just a short "me too". In my case it isn't a heavy > traffic server but a > (slow) UP desktop system which "feels" substantially > smoother with ULE.Also, as far as I understand, some extra boost comes from using polling the devices; however, not all devices do support this yet. I use SMP (dual intel CPUs) with if_xl lan card, but I can't use polling with this device. ULE + polling would be a great performance gain, I believe. Any plans of extending polling support to more devices? Rob. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Hi, I noticed this: You're running RELENG_5 on a dual Xeon 3.06GHz box You enabled DEVICE_POLLING and ULE as well. But normally compiling the kernel with SMP and polling won't work. Don't you use a SMP kernel or? Bye, Mipam.
On Thu, February 10, 2005 11:43 am, Kevin Oberman said:>> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:32:34 -0600 (CST) From: "Doug Poland" >> Precisely how does one upgrade 5-STABLE to include ULE + PREMPT? >> Obviously I'll cvsup RELENG_5, but don't know how to set ULE + >> PREMPT. >> > Put them in your configuration. Rebuild kernel. See /sys/cong/NOTES > and /sys/i386/conf/NOTES. (I you are not running on an i386, look for > the MD arch file in the obvious places.) >Thanks, I didn't know about /sys/conf/NOTES. I grep'd for ULE in /sys/conf/i386/* but no hits. -- Regards, Doug