From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Nov 17 5:41:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52C437B4C5 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:41:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06390 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.1/8.9.1) id eAHDfXB41846; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:41:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:41:33 -0500 (EST) To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: potentially simpler approach than scheduler activations. In-Reply-To: <20001116140506.Q830@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001116140506.Q830@fw.wintelcom.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <14868.39578.928654.157924@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Alfred Perlstein writes: <...> > > I know that by applying these band-aids we aren't completely > solving every problem and as new interfaces pop-up we might > have to apply more band-aids to libc_r, but I think this > might get us past the point of system that breaks down on > disk IO. <...> This sounds like a really good idea to me, as long as it is qualified as an interum solution until KSE is ready and not a competitor to it. Drew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin Duke University Email: gallatin@cs.duke.edu Department of Computer Science Phone: (919) 660-6590 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message