Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:18:16 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Duane Whitty <duane@greenmeadow.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow Message-ID: <20060507191816.GA1976@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <445DC132.7060405@greenmeadow.ca> References: <445DC132.7060405@greenmeadow.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 06:43:14AM -0300, Duane Whitty wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). > when I last built 6-STABLE >=20 > Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with > 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running > both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and > Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm > updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, > I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA > I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine > I'm running. Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS > or INVARIANTS turned on) FYI, in my testing ULE is faster under light workloads but quite a lot slower under heavy loads. It's not recommended, but YMMV. Kris --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEXkf4Wry0BWjoQKURAum3AKDvqqMP340HWmVwZGnHkij7Hsu+ZwCdHADi iQY3frYJSt2kncWlONOrwDI= =phkO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060507191816.GA1976>