From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 16 5:40: 2 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 BB88237B400 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB59243E42 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:39:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #7) id 17fgOL-000Ie8-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:39:49 +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 g7GCdm3H059204; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:39:48 +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 g7GCdmqU059203; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:39:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:39:48 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When to consider the new scehduler? Message-ID: <20020816123948.GC58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20020816104037.GA58453@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CDF48.9C9B30ED@mindspring.com> <20020816115957.GA58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Scanner: exiscan *17fgOL-000Ie8-00*9phF3zMe29Y* (Manchester Computing, University of Manchester) 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 Sorry, my last email was sent prematurely. I hit 'send' a bit too soon. | > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) I thought only NT did that. I was *trying* to be funny. :-) | Not really. A lot of them are rehashing things we've known | for a long time, and UNIX just hasn't implemented, for whatever | reason (usually, failure to incorporate patches). For example, I know that's an especially touchy point for you. :-) | Luigi did FACK/SACK patches against FreeBSD around 1996, and Rice | University did LRP against FreeBSD around 1998, and neither were | commiited. Rutgers has implemented a stateful failover API with | minor stack modifications against FreeBSD-STABLE, which they are | very interested in seeing incorporated in FreeBSD, and they are | basically being ignored. | | I'd say it was more "people who refuse to learn from history are | doomed to repeat it". See, this stuff annoys me. Getting people to contribute isn't easy. Especially quality code. Ignore volunteers, and they'll go away. | I don't know where this whole idea of having a bunch of knobs | that you have to turn away from the defaults to get non-mediocre | performace came from, but the mythology that has grown up around | the believe is, well, really annoying. 8-(. That's one thing I really like about Unix/FreeBSD. It really performs well in many situations, without needing a lot of tweaking. Of course, I'm a neophyte, so I've never really put it to the test, but still. :-) 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