Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:34:48 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kiffin Gish <kiffin.gish@planet.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using SCHED_ULE vs. SCHED_4BSD ... Message-ID: <20051231043448.GC66216@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <1135855260.1034.5.camel@localhost> References: <1135855260.1034.5.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 12:21:00PM +0100, Kiffin Gish wrote: > I recently upgraded from 5.4 to 6.0 and noticed the introduction of > option SCHED_ULE for supporting multi-processor environments. >=20 > However, I understood that using SCHED_ULE with only one CPU can also > improve performance significantly. >=20 > Is this true, and if so, what are the risks involved dropping good old > SCHED_4BSD for the new-and-improved scheduler? The risks are that you system will perform 10-20% slower under load, and may sometimes panic or spontaneously reboot. In other words: ULE is not production-ready. This may of course change at a later date. Kris --O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDtgpnWry0BWjoQKURAiEtAJwLdAX3EOSyk85Aiq34llyWH5t43ACfcAxr pprmuu3N0oEZCMZFBmnVuUs= =cMTv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051231043448.GC66216>