From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 27 09:25:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5DC16A4BF for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-169-107-97.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.107.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7680C43F93 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:25:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F108666BE5; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE4197D3; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:25:03 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Steven Hartland Message-ID: <20030827162503.GA21457@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <016e01c36cb4$98b52fb0$b3db87d4@vader> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <016e01c36cb4$98b52fb0$b3db87d4@vader> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whats the state of SCHED_ULE 5.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:25:05 -0000 --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:02:19PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > Whats the state of SCHED_ULE in 5.1 we are using 5.1-RELEASE > for running game servers and Im considering looking at using=20 > SCHED_ULE but wanted to know if anyone had any feedback > on its current state e.g. whats its good at what its not good at / any > issues? There are still known problems with it (see mailing list archives). Problems I have seen include: CPU stats are not updated for sleeping processes (leading to a weird top(1) experience), interactive performance is not as good as SCHED_4BSD when under load, and there seem to still be problems with the scheduling of niced processes (e.g. nice +20 processes still grab CPU away from others). My recommendation would be to try it for yourself if you can spare the time, otherwise stick with SCHED_4BSD for now. Kris --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/TNtfWry0BWjoQKURAtXCAKDf10zEQuGA9wzTG7wMlf9Zi3GxKACgtgth yFnPVlG4zEpG+AG9Cy3GmIQ= =vS1T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--