FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:13:43AM +0000, RW wrote:
> On Sunday 26 November 2006 19:43, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:06:57PM +0000, RW wrote:
> > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 12:18, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> > > > On 11/26/06, John Smith <almarrie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > What shall I use as a scheduler on it? 4BSD or ULE?
> > > >
> > > > The general consensus is you should not touch ULE unless
> > > > you're a developer willing to fix some outstanding issues and
> > > > maybe take active maintainership of it.
> > >
> > > I think that's a bit strong. I've used both, off and on, on my Desktop
> > > machine and not seen any real difference.
> >
> > Guess you're one of the lucky ones then.  I hope you can understand
> > why in general users should not use a kernel feature with known
> > problems, and they should at the very least turn it off and reconfirm
> > their problems before reporting them, to avoid wasting developer time.
> 
> It might save everyone a lot of time if the GENERIC file entry were changed 
> to:
> 
> #options      SCHED_ULE        # ULE scheduler (experimental)

Better yet, it was removed from GENERIC altogether and a warning added
to the NOTES file:

# SCHED_ULE is a new scheduler that has been designed for SMP and has some
# advantages for UP as well.  It is intended to replace the 4BSD scheduler
# over time.  NOTE: SCHED_ULE is currently considered experimental and is
# not recommended for production use at this time.

Kris
-------------- 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/20061127/2fc92c84/attachment.pgp