Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:21:02 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: powerd freeze with amd 5000 X2 but not with lower cpus Message-ID: <20070728232102.GG1152@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200707281903.54973.joao@matik.com.br> References: <200707271109.51334.joao@matik.com.br> <46AB48A7.8060103@freebsd.org> <20070728174717.GA66065@rot26.obsecurity.org> <200707281903.54973.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2007-Jul-28 19:03:54 -0300, JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: >so using ULE in 7 is ok ? ? ? Yes. >ULE in 6.x is absolutely ok and it runs depending on situation faster than= =20 >4BSD with correct kernel and sysctl settings for it and it is perfectly=20 >stable, This is simply wrong. ULE in 6.x is known to have problems and is unsupported. If the problems do not affect your particular workload then fine. If you have _any_ problems whilst running with ULE in 6.x, your problems will not be invstigated unless you can reproduce the problem with the 4BSD scheduler. As Kris stated, reporting problems in 6.x when you are running ULE is just wasting developer resources. Please stop implying that people should be using ULE in 6.x unless you are willing to personally provide support for them. --=20 Peter Jeremy --84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGq89e/opHv/APuIcRAtOVAJ9D2bItnYPwKXvrwLiPyXsvjRKz0ACgwIq4 8hb8dBW5XXFcLh0G5Dc2g6g= =PPrW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070728232102.GG1152>