From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 16 5: 0:58 2002 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 E523C37B406 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B2E43F07 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:00:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 17fflm-0001I4-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:59:58 +0100 Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.12.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7GBxw3H058906; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:59:58 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g7GBxvh2058905; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:59:57 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:59:57 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When to consider the new scehduler? Message-ID: <20020816115957.GA58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20020816104037.GA58453@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CDF48.9C9B30ED@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5CDF48.9C9B30ED@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:17:28AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: | Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | > A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a | > patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better | > than the existing priority feedback scheduler? | > | > NOTE: Please CC me, as I am not currently subscribed. Thanks. | | Basically, you use it if you expect the system to be overloaded, | and don't want to spend the engineering effort to prevent/handle | the overload, and astill want the system to degrade gracefully. Ah, I see. | thrashing, but the result was that the X server had sufficiently | good interactive response to fullfill the "move mouse -> wiggle | cursor" requirement amd avoid cognitive dissonance on the part | of the user attached to the mouse. 8-). Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | Here is an introduction from a moderately good paper on the subject. Interesting how these 'fundamental' concepts of CS are still being researched/refined over the years. Unix already applies so much research and development that was found to have real-world practicality, and yet still there is room for improvement in at least some circumstances. I'll check out these papers you referred to. | For my money, the algorithm to use in networking equipment, in | which you want to optimize packet throughput, is Weighted Fair | Share Queueing (as in the IBM/UMass work on QLinux, which also It would be nice if the 'instant workstation' port tweaked the system settings to meet a balance between needs of the network and needs of the user. Things like scheduler, sysctl settings, and so on. Of course, that's a bit of overkill, wouldn't ya say? ;-) jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message