From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 29 13:45:44 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C589E16A41F for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:45:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mailing-lists@msdi.ca) Received: from mail02.msdihosting.net (9.67-18-64.networks.msdihosting.net [64.18.67.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B90C43D48 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:45:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mailing-lists@msdi.ca) Received: from ian.msdi.ca ([24.201.183.241]) by mail02.msdihosting.net ((iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003))) with SMTP id CLI20599 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:45:59 -0500 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20051229084332.0403ca58@Msdi.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:45:34 -0500 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: Ian Lord In-Reply-To: <43B363FE.60906@obsecurity.org> References: <43B2F0A8.2030609@freebsd.org> <43B2F236.80903@rogers.com> <43B363FE.60906@obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-DEBUG: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: RELENG_6: Which scheduler for SMP? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:45:44 -0000 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)