Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:52:57 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org>, Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <20071001145257.EC9FC4500F@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:26:39 %2B1000." <20071001205923.U2657@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_1191250377_25579P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:26:39 +1000 (EST) > From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> > >>>> YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive > >>>> uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers > >>>> is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those > >>>> systems in the majority of cases. > >>> > >>> I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior. > >> > >> This is unsafe to say. > > > > Given that the overwhelming amount of feedback by qualified poeple, I think > > it's fair to say that ULE gives a more responsive system under load. > > This is not my experience. Maybe I don't run enough interactive bloatware > to have a large enough interactive load for the scheduler to make a > difference. That, or you don't run interactive on older systems with slow CPUs and limited memory. (This does NOT imply that ULE is going to help when experiencing heavy swapfile activity. I don't think anything helps that except more RAM.) The place it seem most evident to me is X responsiveness when the system (1GHz X 256MB PIII) is busy with large builds. Performance is terrible with 4BSD and only bad with ULE. Note that I am running Gnome (speaking of bloatware). The difference when running ULE is pretty dramatic. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 --==_Exmh_1191250377_25579P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 06/03/2002 iD8DBQFHAQnJkn3rs5h7N1ERAhk4AKCHHT4trxVXK+hGymhy03BV8ZwplgCfRDXs V+lJ5AEGZKl0Nl1XwQd8Fhw= =UTNe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1191250377_25579P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071001145257.EC9FC4500F>