From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 27 00:13:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20FC16A47C for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:13:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E6643D7E for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:12:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from gumby.localdomain (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D56B51943 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:13:46 -0500 (EST) From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:13:43 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <499c70c0611260212sa53a2bcq6345f063b7bfdddf@mail.gmail.com> <200611261706.57754.fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> <20061126194359.GB76643@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20061126194359.GB76643@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611270013.44016.fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:13:54 -0000 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 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)