ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Sun May 7 19:18:23 UTC 2006

On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 06:43:14AM -0300, Duane Whitty wrote:
> Hi,
> I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try  a while ago (April 28).
> when I last built 6-STABLE
> Anyhow it seems great.  I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with
> 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks.  Right now I'm running
> both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and
> Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm
> updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository.  Oh yeah,
> I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA
> I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine
> I'm running.    Wow!  (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS
> or INVARIANTS turned on)

FYI, in my testing ULE is faster under light workloads but quite a lot
slower under heavy loads.  It's not recommended, but YMMV.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20060507/ca7df40e/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list