From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 29 18:12:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D2D16A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 May 2004 18:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtaw4.prodigy.net (mtaw4.prodigy.net [64.164.98.52])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39ECA43D41
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 May 2004 18:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org)
Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org
	(0034e691531e5d6c31902d51e8927ceb@adsl-67-115-73-128.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net
	[67.115.73.128])
	by mtaw4.prodigy.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4U1CDAw012779;
	Sat, 29 May 2004 18:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 6730A51770; Sat, 29 May 2004 18:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 18:12:13 -0700
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Message-ID: <20040530011213.GA5166@xor.obsecurity.org>
References: <20040529203815.G907@ganymede.hub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040529203815.G907@ganymede.hub.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SCHED_BSD vs SCHED_ULE ...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 01:12:26 -0000


--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 08:41:53PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>=20
> Is there a circumstance where the older SCHED is better then ULE?
>=20
> Or is the older one something that will eventually just be removed=20
> altogether?
>=20
> If the older does have areas in which it is the better, are there any doc=
s=20
> comparing the two?

ULE has some bugs still, and the maintainer has been busy with
!FreeBSD for a while now.

Specifically, ULE doesn't work well on HTT (poor performance, and the
sysctls to disable HTT don't work), and I have interactivity problems
with it on my amd64 desktop.

Kris

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAuTTtWry0BWjoQKURAtPyAKD8mlUxfTETkP92A7MgGk2w0ql+RQCgxXeD
NxQsrfncipYRE4/wmuobSr8=
=2kMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--