From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri Jun 25 10:29:13 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC7915241 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 10xZj5-0005bI-00; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:25:19 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Thomas Schuerger Cc: "Jose M. Alcaide" , schuerge@cs.uni-sb.de, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/12381: Bad scheduling in FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:11:37 +0200." <199906251711.TAA01416@wjpserver.cs.uni-sb.de> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:25:19 +0200 Message-ID: <21531.930331519@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:11:37 +0200, Thomas Schuerger wrote: > Updating the ports with 2 rc5des (notice: 2 processors) processes > in the background (niced to +20): John Polstra, the author of CVSup, would be the first to tell you that CVSup is a CPU hog itself. This isn't the right test to be using. > I have exported a directory via NFS and NFS accesses are VERY MUCH > slower from a remote machine, Again, NFS is something that _does_ require CPU. Use a real test like FTP on a large file when the network is not loaded. It's not that I'm not interested, it's just that my experience of FreeBSD differs radically from what you're suggesting. It would be good if you could produce a test that a) Demonstrates a serious problem that affects real-world scenarios, and b) Is measureable using appropriate tests. Ciao Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message