Re: DragonFly vs FreeBSD scheduler
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am 11/03/12 15:17, schrieb Mark Felder:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:18:55 +0800
> Alie Tan <alie@affle.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Hi,
>>
>> No offence, just curious about scheduler and its functionality.
>>
>> What is the different between this two that makes FreeBSD performance =
far
>> behind DragonFly BSD? http://www.dragonflybsd.org/release32/
>>
>=20
> I don't have any details but I do know that Dragonfly has been putting =
a lot of work into their scheduler. Hopefully some of that will trickle b=
ack our way.
Obviously they made the right decissions, but a single benchmark with a
DB server like postgresql doesn't tell the whole story. Let's see what
Phoronix will come up with. I'd like to see some more benchmarks of
DragonFly 3.2.
I doubt that the DragonFly scheduler approaches will go/flow easily into
FreeBSD. But I'd like to see it, even dumping ULE for a better approach.
--------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQlTobAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8TVAIANpURouGOpwbS+eftmdfwIGd
7bF8MNKPCHDvTb83hXpGZuu/nYx/LC8FWSuNn9OfjqJ9MPgMWK6XBRcw/GnSr5/g
arIrPFDdN12W4fCM6y9WtNsfaUOrnFRm3s6783qvPk8+1XpmDNc+306bAQZN70i9
7hxp+y50eRUM3xfSlI8P5aY73qgPo1wThfwOudc5wOO0bLlbCzjEvMvrvbfQaCMT
F9w3sCKqqE0JejudSbUBfrpnbJgFoJIq4zTOR3xMUX5U83kn/6Wyb1n2++JFJMYx
uP6S6xby+bu6dZDvpv3sEbGXYxNYJxiTc5yz1BhJk76BqGrGkpCKBMoD9JN6h+w=
=mYbT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig62E5ED042FE4DC85F5E96F29--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 9 之 9 篇)：