Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:58:22 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: v0rbiz@icon.bg Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status Message-ID: <20050208155822.29df9373@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <4253.213.222.48.10.1107866717.squirrel@mailgw.icon.bg> References: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081306440.28295@ux11.ltcm.net> <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <4253.213.222.48.10.1107866717.squirrel@mailgw.icon.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:45:17 +0200 (EET) "Viktor Ivanov" <v0rbiz@icon.bg> wrote: > On Tue, =D4=E5=E2=F0=F3=E0=F0=E8 8, 2005 14:33, Michael Nottebrock =EA=E0= =E7=E0: > > On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 13:07, Mipam wrote: > >> I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. > >> Beneath is one of them: > >> > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html > >> > >> Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not? > > > > You can now compile a kernel with options SCHED_ULE again. How well it > > works > > is for yourself to determine :-) (I've been using it on my UP machine h= ere > > since yesterday only). >=20 > Hi there >=20 > I've been using only SCHED_ULE on my UP WS, even when there was #error > def. It never broke, not even once :) Though I think there's trouble > with SMP and/or HTT. I tried it once on a P4 and it paniced. >=20 > On the other hand, using SCHED_ULE improves sound quality and general > system 'response' concerning GUI... don't know 'bout performance. By any chance does it help with copying from ata disks on different controllers ? For me on large files this brings up "swap_pager: indefinite wait buffer" with 4BSD. --=20 IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050208155822.29df9373>