Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: dual cpu stuff...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:19:12 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <321E66A0.7FAD4C40@lambert.org>
References: <4vcsn4$7ql@cantina.clinet.fi> <4veq47$cc@anorak.coverform.lan>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Brian Somers wrote:
[ ... ]
] FreeBSDs performance (as far as I know, but I'm not talking
] "authoritively") may give close to 100% improvement - but it
] really depends on your application.
In your dreams!
My measured performance with a grossly incompetent scheduler
hack was only about 60% using a parallel make for a system
build as my benchmark.
This is with low grain parallelism (no kernel reentrancy). This
was about two months ago.
] If you've got a lot of user-level cpu intensive code you'll
] get max benefit. If you've got lots of kernel-level code, the
] benefit will be reduced.
This part is true... mostly because the kernel isn't reentrant,
so if it's kernel intensive, you won't get any improvement.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.