Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:45:34 -0500 From: Ian Lord <mailing-lists@msdi.ca> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELENG_6: Which scheduler for SMP? Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051229084332.0403ca58@Msdi.ca> In-Reply-To: <43B363FE.60906@obsecurity.org> References: <43B2F0A8.2030609@freebsd.org> <43B2F236.80903@rogers.com> <43B363FE.60906@obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 23:20 2005-12-28, Kris Kennaway wrote: >Mike Jakubik wrote: > >>Mark Ovens wrote: >> >>>I've never had any success with the ULE scheduler on my dual >>>Athlon box running RELENG_5; it was so unstable it made Windows >>>3.1 look stable. In fact my current build, cvsup'd a couple of >>>days ago, won't even boot with ULE. >>> >>> From what I remember, ULE was intended to become the default >>> scheduler during the life of 5.0 but that hasn't happened. >>> >>>I've just cvsup'd the source for RELENG_6 and I'm surprised to >>>find in the GENERIC config file: >>> >>>#options SCHED_ULE # ULE scheduler >>>options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler >>> >>>so it seems 4BSD is still the default scheduler. Is ULE _still_ >>>considered to be in development/experimental? Even the SMP config >>>file doesn't use ULE. >> >> >> >>There have been substantial improvements made to it since 5. >>However no one will be able to tell you if its 100% ready, you will >>just have to try it on your system. Then what's the point of ULE if it's slower then 4BSD ? Is it more stable, more... ? I compiled my kernel with ULE since I though it would be better but you are starting to make me regret my decision :) (I didn't benchmark both options, still in developpement right now, nothing in production)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7.0.0.16.2.20051229084332.0403ca58>