From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 1 00:04:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9F316A4CF for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 00:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from digger1.defence.gov.au (digger1.defence.gov.au [203.5.217.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7EB43D4C for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 00:04:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wilkinsa@squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au) Received: from ednmsw503.dsto.defence.gov.au (ednmsw503.dsto.defence.gov.au [131.185.2.150]) by digger1.defence.gov.au with ESMTP id i517439k023076 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:34:03 +0930 (CST) Received: from muttley.dsto.defence.gov.au (unverified) by ednmsw503.dsto.defence.gov.au (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.10) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:34:33 +0930 Received: from ednex501.dsto.defence.gov.au (ednex501.dsto.defence.gov.au [131.185.2.81]) by muttley.dsto.defence.gov.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i516xhG26392; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:29:43 +0930 (CST) Received: from squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au ([131.185.40.211]) by ednex501.dsto.defence.gov.au with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id LG86NQ36; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:29:34 +0930 Received: from squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i516xkiM096649 ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:29:46 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from wilkinsa@squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au) Received: (from wilkinsa@localhost) by squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i516xfsu096646; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:29:41 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from wilkinsa) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:29:41 +0930 From: "Wilkinson, Alex" To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-ID: <20040601065941.GC74969@squirm.dsto.defence.gov.au> References: <20040529203815.G907@ganymede.hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040529203815.G907@ganymede.hub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_BSD vs SCHED_ULE ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:04:47 -0000 On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 08:41:53PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Is there a circumstance where the older SCHED is better then ULE? Or is the older one something that will eventually just be removed altogether? If the older does have areas in which it is the better, are there any docs comparing the two? An article was written here: "Scheduler Performance: ULE vs. 4BSD" http://www.thejemreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=116&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 - aW