From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 18 0:47:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1C337B657; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:47:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eAI8l7S07938; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:47:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:47:07 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Greg Lehey Cc: "David O'Brien" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: potentially simpler approach than scheduler activations. Message-ID: <20001118004707.A18037@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001116140506.Q830@fw.wintelcom.net> <14868.39578.928654.157924@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20001117094543.A76006@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001118141116.E70679@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001118141116.E70679@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 02:11:16PM +1030 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Greg Lehey [001117 19:42] wrote: > On Friday, 17 November 2000 at 9:45:43 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > Also KSE's will never be back ported to RELENG_4. Maybe some of these > > ideas can be. > > I see this as diluting the effort. Once we have a bandaid, we'll be > less concerned about doing the right thing. And deliberately > introducing different semantics in RELENG_4 seems not to be the Right > Thing To Do. This wasn't meant to start a discussion whether it was an evil thing to do or not, it was meant to provide a framework for someone with the time and skill to do it. Please stop discussing the relative merits, I proposed this idea knowing full well that KSE is better, this is just easier to implement and a worthy project for someone wanting to take that extra step into some hardcode programming. But you can't satisfy everyone can you? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message