From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 16 5:35:29 2002 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 1BA8037B401 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9C243E3B for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:35:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 17fgK3-000269-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:35:23 +0100 Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.12.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7GCZM3H059161; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:35:22 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g7GCZMkY059160; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:35:22 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:35:21 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When to consider the new scehduler? Message-ID: <20020816123521.GB58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20020816104037.GA58453@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CDF48.9C9B30ED@mindspring.com> <20020816115957.GA58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG | > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-) | Not really. A lot of them are rehashing things we've known | for a long time, and UNIX just hasn't implemented, for whatever | reason (usually, failure to incorporate patches). For example, | Luigi did FACK/SACK patches against FreeBSD around 1996, and Rice | University did LRP against FreeBSD around 1998, and neither were | commiited. Rutgers has implemented a stateful failover API with | minor stack modifications against FreeBSD-STABLE, which they are | very interested in seeing incorporated in FreeBSD, and they are | basically being ignored. | | I'd say it was more "people who refuse to learn from history are | doomed to repeat it". | | | | > | For my money, the algorithm to use in networking equipment, in | > | which you want to optimize packet throughput, is Weighted Fair | > | Share Queueing (as in the IBM/UMass work on QLinux, which also | > | > It would be nice if the 'instant workstation' port tweaked the system | > settings to meet a balance between needs of the network and needs of | > the user. Things like scheduler, sysctl settings, and so on. | > | > Of course, that's a bit of overkill, wouldn't ya say? ;-) | | Not really. | | It's possible to implement optimal networking algorithms, and | have them be useful. A workstation experiencing a load based | denial of service attack would function nearly normally, if its | networking stack had Lazy Receiver Processing integrated (as one | example). So I wouldn't categorize things as "workstation | technology" vs. "server technology" simply because the person | I'm talking two only has two buckets, and insists I pick one. | 8-). | | I don't know where this whole idea of having a bunch of knobs | that you have to turn away from the defaults to get non-mediocre | performace came from, but the mythology that has grown up around | the believe is, well, really annoying. 8-(. | | -- Terry jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message