From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 15 13:19:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0948D16A407 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:19:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8877443D46 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:19:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from collaborativefusion.com (mx01.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.201]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:19:36 -0500 id 000564CE.455B13E8.0000FFFF Received: from Internal Mail-Server by mx01 (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Nov 2006 08:19:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:19:33 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: "Jeff Mohler" Message-Id: <20061115081933.0c248177.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1163545085.492.20.camel@columbus.webtent.org> <8cb6106e0611141504sa4fbe00q8aeda6f869422d26@mail.gmail.com> <1163548016.492.26.camel@columbus.webtent.org> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Subject: Re: Dual core processors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:19:38 -0000 In response to "Jeff Mohler" : > Is a stock kernel config the 'fast' way to go on these CPUs? > > Sure wish there was an 'options I_WANNA_GO_FAST' or an 'options > RICKY_BOBBY' that would just do all the right things. > > Still not sure which scheduler to go with.. Unless something has changed very recently, most of the schedulers are considered "experimental" and have known bugs. The only one that I know is stable is SCHED_4BSD. Apparently, SCHED_ULE has some nice performance improvements when it's not causing panics. If you're not interested/capable in doing kernel debugging, you probably want to go with SCHED_4BSD. It would appear that some day SCHED_ULE will replace it, but not yet. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient (or the individual responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.