Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 18:12:13 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_BSD vs SCHED_ULE ... Message-ID: <20040530011213.GA5166@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040529203815.G907@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20040529203815.G907@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040530011213.GA5166>