Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:45:43 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: potentially simpler approach than scheduler activations. Message-ID: <20001117094543.A76006@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <14868.39578.928654.157924@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>; from gallatin@cs.duke.edu on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 08:41:33AM -0500 References: <20001116140506.Q830@fw.wintelcom.net> <14868.39578.928654.157924@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I know that by applying these band-aids we aren't completely
> > solving every problem and as new interfaces pop-up we might
> > have to apply more band-aids to libc_r, but I think this
> > might get us past the point of system that breaks down on
> > disk IO.
>
> This sounds like a really good idea to me, as long as it is qualified
> as an interum solution until KSE is ready and not a competitor to it.
Also KSE's will never be back ported to RELENG_4. Maybe some of these
ideas can be.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001117094543.A76006>