Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:14:14 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Subject: Re: powerd freeze with amd 5000 X2 but not with lower cpus Message-ID: <200707282314.14446.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070728232102.GG1152@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <200707271109.51334.joao@matik.com.br> <200707281903.54973.joao@matik.com.br> <20070728232102.GG1152@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 28 July 2007 20:21:02 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2007-Jul-28 19:03:54 -0300, JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: > >so using ULE in 7 is ok ? ? ? > > Yes. > I thought it is SCHED_SMP on 7 ... isn't it? if not forget my joke, I remem= ber=20 a msg from Roberson saying the _SMP will substitute _ULE on 7 but I do not= =20 use 7 so may be it changed later back to it's original name > >ULE in 6.x is absolutely ok and it runs depending on situation faster th= an > >4BSD with correct kernel and sysctl settings for it and it is perfectly > >stable, > > This is simply wrong. ULE in 6.x is known to have problems and is > unsupported. If the problems do not affect your particular workload > then fine. If you have _any_ problems whilst running with ULE in 6.x, > your problems will not be invstigated unless you can reproduce the > problem with the 4BSD scheduler. > interesting, what do you know? Do you have some data to share? I don't know where you got your info but I have 50 X2 SMP amd64 running an= d=20 25 or so dual-opteron dualcores with SCHED_ULE absolute rockstable and fast= er=20 than 4BSD, as I mentioned under the circumstances I described before I also have more 40 or so X2s and 60 or so dual and quad opteron dualcores = =20 running 4BSD and before you tell me more blabla copied from newspapers and= =20 other cha-cha sources better you come to me with data (DATA=3Dnumbers) from= =20 *real* world > As Kris stated, reporting problems in 6.x when you are running ULE is > just wasting developer resources. well I also don't know where you got this because I *never ever* claimed an= y=20 problem with ULE=20 > > Please stop implying that people should be using ULE in 6.x unless you > are willing to personally provide support for them. I also do not know where you got this because I also *never ever* implied= =20 using ULE, I simply say that I do *NOT* have any problem with it the way I= =20 use it So you please read the complete msgs and *try* to understand them before=20 answering with distortions and irrelevant conversations=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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200707282314.14446.joao>