Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:50:14 +1030 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Mark Ovens <marko@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RELENG_6: Which scheduler for SMP? Message-ID: <43B363FE.60906@obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <43B2F236.80903@rogers.com> References: <43B2F0A8.2030609@freebsd.org> <43B2F236.80903@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Jakubik wrote: > Mark Ovens wrote: > >> I've never had any success with the ULE scheduler on my dual Athlon >> box running RELENG_5; it was so unstable it made Windows 3.1 look >> stable. In fact my current build, cvsup'd a couple of days ago, won't >> even boot with ULE. >> >> From what I remember, ULE was intended to become the default >> scheduler during the life of 5.0 but that hasn't happened. >> >> I've just cvsup'd the source for RELENG_6 and I'm surprised to find >> in the GENERIC config file: >> >> #options SCHED_ULE # ULE scheduler >> options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler >> >> so it seems 4BSD is still the default scheduler. Is ULE _still_ >> considered to be in development/experimental? Even the SMP config >> file doesn't use ULE. > > > > There have been substantial improvements made to it since 5. However > no one will be able to tell you if its 100% ready, you will just have > to try it on your system. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > ULE is about 10-20% slower than 4BSD except under minimal load, in my testing. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43B363FE.60906>