From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 21:47:25 2004 Return-Path: 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 4ABB916A4CE for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:47:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2359D43D58 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:47:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 209E85150C; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:47:49 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Patrick Tracanelli Message-ID: <20041020214749.GA52017@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <4176D9A3.9030500@freebsdbrasil.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4176D9A3.9030500@freebsdbrasil.com.br> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Valmir Consoni Subject: Re: -RC1 more stable when compared to -STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:47:25 -0000 --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:33:23PM -0300, Patrick Tracanelli wrote: >=20 > Recently I was running a number of tests against 5.3-STABLE (btw,=20 > RELENG_5 labeling the system as 5.3-STABLE might be very confusing in a= =20 > situation where there's not even a 5.3-RELEASE yet, if one doesnt follow= =20 > how -STABLE are treated compared to "security branchs"), in a SMP system= =20 > with multiple SATA RAID, and it was not responding well, had a number of= =20 > freezes under stress tests; Some of those problems could be minimized=20 > running BSD as the scheduller instead of ULE; >=20 > Now -RC1 shows the same performance 5.2.1 used to, also w/ SCHED_BSD,=20 > but with ULE it stops responding well sometimes. Don't use ULE! It has known problems! Kris --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBdt0FWry0BWjoQKURArK6AKCmsdQ5haWyK1RrnH4eUnnREuUyMACdH6hB o/QcJir7li4T76AaCTfytYQ= =km9A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG--