Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:19:39 -0500 From: Mike B <meb@cinci.rr.com> To: conrads@cox.net Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I like SCHED_4BSD Message-ID: <4050BBCB.50302@cinci.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040310213645.conrads@cox.net> References: <XFMail.20040310213645.conrads@cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Conrad Sabatier wrote: > I just decided to revert to SCHED_4BSD for the time being. Why? > > o Better interactivity -- No mouse jerkiness, no sluggish screen updates when > switching between virtual desktops, etc. > > o Better scheduling! I'm serious here. Watching top under SCHED_ULE, I'm > seeing 10, 15, 20 seconds go by where ALL processes are sleeping. > Processes seem to be spending inordinate amounts of time in the "kserel" > state. This, of course, doesn't happen with SCHED_4BSD. > > I do hope there are no immediate plans to deprecate SCHED_4BSD altogether. It > just seems to work a whole lot better for me. I'm probably not alone in this. I couldn't agree more. After doing the suggested mappings in libmap.conf and recompiling apps I can see a drastic difference in load times and performance between ULE and 4BSD. Using ULE the load wait for firefox could be anywhere from 10-30 seconds while with 4BSD it is a constant 4 second load time. When switching between desktops it can take up to 10 seconds to redraw the screen. This sluggishness isn't exclusive to firefox, opera and openoffice are noticeably laggy under ULE as well. I WANT to like and use ULE but the performance just isn't there. Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4050BBCB.50302>