ULE and very bad responsiveness

Harald Schmalzbauer h at schmalzbauer.de
Wed Nov 12 22:17:35 PST 2003


from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On 2003-11-13, Harald Schmalzbauer <news at schmalzbauer.de> wrote:
>> Well, I don't have any measurements but in my case it's not neccessary at
>> all. I built a UP kernel with ULE like Kris advised me.
> Are you running an up-to-date 5.1-CURRENT?  ULE was broken with these
> characteristics until very recently.  If you're up-to-date and still
> see these problems, you need to post to the current mailing list.
> Kris

Yes, I am running current as of 13. Nov.

Find attached my first problem description.


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Harald Schmalzbauer <news at schmalzbauer.de>
Subject: Re: fyi: freebsd 5-current performance vs debugging
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:14:02 +0100
Size: 3742
Url: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20031113/b6e72621/attachment.eml
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20031113/b6e72621/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list