Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:53:53 -0400 From: "derwood" <derwood@naebunny.net> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: smp in 5.1 Message-ID: <002a01c36074$95dd3180$6d00a8c0@derwood2> In-Reply-To: <20030811231014.GA55200@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've been running 5.1-Current since its release on a Dell Precision 410 with dual P-III 500's No SMP problems here at all.. Its been extremely stable for me thus far. Darin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Steve Kargl Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:10 PM To: Andy Farkas Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Eriq Lamar Subject: Re: smp in 5.1 On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote: > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote: > > > Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so > > could someone tell what they are. I am interested in building dual > > system using mp's but not sure which version would be better. > > Scheduling in 5.1 is broken (sched_ule doesn't even work*). > > Stick with 4.8. > > * for me, sched_ule completely locks up my box, no ping, no keybd. > Exact same kernel with sched_4bsd works fine. > Strange. ULE has worked fine on my UP system for several months and the SMP system I recently obtained from a co-worker hasn't panicked while running ULE. Can you drop into ddb and trace the problem with ULE on your system? -- Steve _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002a01c36074$95dd3180$6d00a8c0>