Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:35:21 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When to consider the new scehduler? Message-ID: <20020816123521.GB58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com> References: <20020816104037.GA58453@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CDF48.9C9B30ED@mindspring.com> <20020816115957.GA58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
| > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-) | Not really. A lot of them are rehashing things we've known | for a long time, and UNIX just hasn't implemented, for whatever | reason (usually, failure to incorporate patches). For example, | Luigi did FACK/SACK patches against FreeBSD around 1996, and Rice | University did LRP against FreeBSD around 1998, and neither were | commiited. Rutgers has implemented a stateful failover API with | minor stack modifications against FreeBSD-STABLE, which they are | very interested in seeing incorporated in FreeBSD, and they are | basically being ignored. | | I'd say it was more "people who refuse to learn from history are | doomed to repeat it". | | | | > | For my money, the algorithm to use in networking equipment, in | > | which you want to optimize packet throughput, is Weighted Fair | > | Share Queueing (as in the IBM/UMass work on QLinux, which also | > | > It would be nice if the 'instant workstation' port tweaked the system | > settings to meet a balance between needs of the network and needs of | > the user. Things like scheduler, sysctl settings, and so on. | > | > Of course, that's a bit of overkill, wouldn't ya say? ;-) | | Not really. | | It's possible to implement optimal networking algorithms, and | have them be useful. A workstation experiencing a load based | denial of service attack would function nearly normally, if its | networking stack had Lazy Receiver Processing integrated (as one | example). So I wouldn't categorize things as "workstation | technology" vs. "server technology" simply because the person | I'm talking two only has two buckets, and insists I pick one. | 8-). | | I don't know where this whole idea of having a bunch of knobs | that you have to turn away from the defaults to get non-mediocre | performace came from, but the mythology that has grown up around | the believe is, well, really annoying. 8-(. | | -- Terry jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020816123521.GB58797>