From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 28 22:03:55 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87B416A41B for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:03:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4550313C48A for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:03:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from ap-h.matik.com.br (ap-h.matik.com.br [200.152.83.36]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6SM3s5v017633; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:03:54 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR Organization: Infomatik To: Kris Kennaway Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:03:54 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200707271109.51334.joao@matik.com.br> <46AB48A7.8060103@freebsd.org> <20070728174717.GA66065@rot26.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070728174717.GA66065@rot26.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707281903.54973.joao@matik.com.br> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.90.3, clamav-milter version 0.90.3 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: powerd freeze with amd 5000 X2 but not with lower cpus X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:03:55 -0000 On Saturday 28 July 2007 14:47:17 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 03:46:15PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > Meanwhile I found a workaround for my system: I had SCHED_ULE configured > > in my kernel - switching to SCHED_4BSD gets rid of the freezes. Should > > have thought of that sooner, ISTR having problems with powerd and > > SCHED_ULE even on single cpu P4s. > > I see you've now learned a reason why no-one should be using SCHED_ULE > on FreeBSD < 7 so using ULE in 7 is ok ? ? ? you already told once ULE is broken in 6 what is nonsense as probably using= =20 ULE in 7 is ... ULE in 6.x is absolutely ok and it runs depending on situation faster than= =20 4BSD with correct kernel and sysctl settings for it and it is perfectly=20 stable, specially with polling + net.isr.enable + net.inet.ip.forwarding += =20 some other tweaks depending on the servers load and several NICs on a route= r=20 probably up to 4-6MB continuous throughput when then 4BSD gets faster but n= ot=20 so much, small and midsize MySQL seems to be faster with ULE too especially= =20 with small r/w packages ULE also seems to be faster on a desktop with SMP and KDE on X2 CPUs and yo= u=20 can feel it=20 =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br