From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Feb 23 09:51:13 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA25266
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA25261
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:51:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17129; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 12:47:20 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 12:47:20 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Linux/FreeBSD NFS performance.
In-Reply-To: <199602231730.KAA23727@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960223124558.17092D-100000@terra>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Actually, this one is solvable using hot engine scheduling.  They
> probably don't implement that yet, since they don't implement
> threading, but the overhead doesn't have to be as high as you think.

terry, i think you're right, I'm in my 'every microsecond hurts' mode and 
so anything looks bad. Any guesstimate as to how low it looks like they 
can get it?

thanks
ron