Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Jeff Roberson wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>
>>> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I
thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
scheduler
deve
P.U.Kruppa wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I
thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
scheduler
development to my benefit.
The switch from RELENG_6 to RE
"[LoN]Kamikaze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>From my perspective scheduling on RELENG_6 was way better. Even on a full
> workload like a portupgrade the focused application (both in X and on the
> console) always received enough cycles to run smoothly and applications that
> ran in background li
Bengt Ahlgren wrote:
> "[LoN]Kamikaze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> From my perspective scheduling on RELENG_6 was way better. Even on a full
>> workload like a portupgrade the focused application (both in X and on the
>> console) always received enough cycles to run smoothly and applications
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
scheduler
development to my benefit.
The switch from RELENG_6 to RELENG_7 went relativ
> Hi Josh, thanks for the report. How many CPUs are in your system? Can
> you give me the output of 'vmstat 5' over the course of one run on 4BSD
> and ULE? Or just one of them if you can't spare the time.
Hi Jeff,
The system has a single quad-core chip, namely an Intel Core 2 Quad
Q6600. Belo
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Josh Carroll wrote:
Not to say that any problems that might have developed with SCHED_4BSD
should not be fixed, but you should give SCHED_ULE a try since it brings
benefits even for single CPU systems (e.g. better interactive response).
For my particular work load, 4BSD is
> Not to say that any problems that might have developed with SCHED_4BSD
> should not be fixed, but you should give SCHED_ULE a try since it brings
> benefits even for single CPU systems (e.g. better interactive response).
For my particular work load, 4BSD is actually faster than ULE in
RELENG_7.
Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>
>> Jeff Roberson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>>
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I
> thought I'd
> give my 2¢ in the hope that I might h
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I
thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
scheduler
development t
Josh Carroll wrote:
>> Not to say that any problems that might have developed with SCHED_4BSD
>> should not be fixed, but you should give SCHED_ULE a try since it brings
>> benefits even for single CPU systems (e.g. better interactive response).
>
> For my particular work load, 4BSD is actually fa
Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
>> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>>> I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I
>>> thought I'd
>>> give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
>>> scheduler
>>> development to my benefit.
>>>
>>>
Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I
thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
scheduler
development to my benefit.
The switch from RELENG_6 to
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the
scheduler
development to my benefit.
The switch from RELENG_6 to RELENG_7 went relativ
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the scheduler
development to my benefit.
The switch from RELENG_6 to RELENG_7 went relatively smooth and apart from ipw
causing panics.
I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I thought I'd
give my 2¢ in the hope that I might have a little influence on the scheduler
development to my benefit.
The switch from RELENG_6 to RELENG_7 went relatively smooth and apart from ipw
causing panics. However there is one th
16 matches
Mail list logo
