From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 14 21:16:57 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1922916A4CE; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E765643D2D; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:16:56 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from wes@softweyr.com)
Received: from zaphod.softweyr.com (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204])
	by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5A2F2881D04; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:16:54 -0800
From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Message-Id: <20040314211654.05d0bb9f.wes@softweyr.com>
In-Reply-To: <xzpwu5tpxvh.fsf@dwp.des.no>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040309113959.26895J-100000@fledge.watson.org>
	<200403091201.23665.wes@softweyr.com>
	<xzpwu5tpxvh.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Organization: Softweyr.com
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
cc: br260@cam.ac.uk
cc: rwatson@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: a serious error in sched_ule.c?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:16:57 -0000

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:29:54 +0100 des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) alleg=
ed:

> Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> writes:
> > One of the classic trade-offs in making a 'server' vs. 'workstation'
> > operating system.  Workstations require a strong preference for
> > interactive over background tasks so the interactive tasks will
> > remain responsive, especially in terms of heavily event-driven tasks
> > like graphical UIs.  For a true server, where interactive tasks are
> > not the norm, this preference may be counter-productive.
>=20
> Umm, remember that "interactive" here means "performs I/O", even if
> that I/O is a database lookup or a TCP connection.

Sigh.  Nobody really does compute-bound tasks anymore, do they?  I really
miss "scientific programming."

--=20

        Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?

Wes Peters                                               wes@softweyr.com