Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:43:16 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE and current. Message-ID: <20031207214316.56D842A8D5@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20031207082612.D4201-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeff Roberson wrote: > Now that 5.2 has been branched I will soon be making ULE the default > scheduler in GENERIC. I'm hoping that before I throw the switch I'll get > more feedback from current users. The only big change I have in the > pipeline for ULE is improved HTT support. This has all been coded and > tested locally. I'm going to commit this after things settle down on HEAD > a little more. > > The plan is to leave ULE as the default until we get to 5.3 at which point > we will decide whether or not it is production quality. The most > untest workload that I know of is on massive multiuser systems with lots > of interactive tasks. If anyone has such a system, I would love to hear > of feedback while running ULE. For anyone else, if your workload is > either improved or hindered, I'd appreciate a mail with the a description > of your workload, your hardware, behavior with ULE, and behavior with > 4BSD. FWIW, this sounds good to me. We've been starting to run ULE by default on the reference machines on the freebsd.org cluster for a while. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031207214316.56D842A8D5>