At 23:20 2005-12-28, Kris Kennaway wrote:
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.
Then what's the point of ULE if it's slower then 4BSD ? Is it more
stable, more... ? I compiled my kernel with ULE since I though it
would be better but you are starting to make me regret my decision :)
(I didn't benchmark both options, still in developpement right now,
nothing in production)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
