Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:29:14 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs > much better than SCHED_4BSD? I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including Jeff, with various tunables, dtrace'ing, etc. The cause of the problem was never found. I switched to 4BSD, problem gone. This is on 2 separate systems with core 2 duos. hth, Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EE69C5A.3090005>