Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:23:27 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "John Smith" <almarrie@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD Message-ID: <cb5206420611260923p3dec437dn8540c06016f6e9db@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <499c70c0611260832m448702e8yaf660e73c08da0de@mail.gmail.com> References: <499c70c0611260212sa53a2bcq6345f063b7bfdddf@mail.gmail.com> <cb5206420611260418h70415e4buc807f001e9b0c9da@mail.gmail.com> <499c70c0611260832m448702e8yaf660e73c08da0de@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/26/06, John Smith <almarrie@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@freebsd.org> 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.
> >
> > You can try it just for the fun of it, but your problem reports
> > will be met by a grinning "we told you so".
> >
>
> Thank you Andrew,
>
> I'm asking because I downloaded PC-BSD 1.3 Beta which is based on
> FreeBSD 6.1 and the default in kernel is ULE, so I wanted to make
> sure.
That's strange. I've used ULE for months on many boxes, but
much as I like it, I have to admit there are serious problems
with it. There are different reports, but it's clear you can't use
it in production environments. It might be okay to run it on your
{desk,lap}top system, though, but PC-BSD developers have
yet to comment on their reasoning.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420611260923p3dec437dn8540c06016f6e9db>