Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:25:03 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Steven Hartland <killing@barrysworld.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whats the state of SCHED_ULE 5.1 Message-ID: <20030827162503.GA21457@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <016e01c36cb4$98b52fb0$b3db87d4@vader> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030827112748.25213B-100000@fledge.watson.org> <016e01c36cb4$98b52fb0$b3db87d4@vader>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:02:19PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > Whats the state of SCHED_ULE in 5.1 we are using 5.1-RELEASE > for running game servers and Im considering looking at using=20 > SCHED_ULE but wanted to know if anyone had any feedback > on its current state e.g. whats its good at what its not good at / any > issues? There are still known problems with it (see mailing list archives). Problems I have seen include: CPU stats are not updated for sleeping processes (leading to a weird top(1) experience), interactive performance is not as good as SCHED_4BSD when under load, and there seem to still be problems with the scheduling of niced processes (e.g. nice +20 processes still grab CPU away from others). My recommendation would be to try it for yourself if you can spare the time, otherwise stick with SCHED_4BSD for now. Kris --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/TNtfWry0BWjoQKURAtXCAKDf10zEQuGA9wzTG7wMlf9Zi3GxKACgtgth yFnPVlG4zEpG+AG9Cy3GmIQ= =vS1T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030827162503.GA21457>