Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:13:43 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD Message-ID: <200611270013.44016.fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20061126194359.GB76643@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <499c70c0611260212sa53a2bcq6345f063b7bfdddf@mail.gmail.com> <200611261706.57754.fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> <20061126194359.GB76643@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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@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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200611270013.44016.fbsd06>