Re: Current ULE state and plans (was Re: HMP scheduling on FreeBSD)

Hi,

> FWIW we use 4BSD exclusively on some 1,200 servers. As it has proven to 
> return the best results for our own use case,
> as well as our clients use cases.

Results measured how?  When was the last time a comparison was made?

> Not looking for an argument here.

Hmm...

> But we'd feel ill served should you decide to pull it. While I can't speak for our clients, I'd venture a they'd feel the same.

Some people in this thread are apparently getting emotional with this topic of potentially retiring 4BSD to the point where they cannot even grasp simple propositions.  You may have your reasons, I certainly don't dispute that.  But at least I would like my real message to be understood for what it is and that you stop talking past me.

So I'll try again with another formulation, even if it is redundant as it is logically implied by what I've already said.  Please read it carefully:
I do not intend to retire 4BSD if (we know for sure that) there are workloads where it performs significantly better than ULE.

Does that reassure you?

> As our time to delivery will increase should we be required to create additional local patches to circumvent 4BSD removal. 
> Which would be a long term commitment.

I hope you understand this as an argument for actually testing ULE and especially responding to future test calls in the area, as doing so will likely cost you much less than keeping 4BSD around by yourself.

Thanks and regards.

-- 
Olivier Certner