Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:13:32 +0530 From: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> To: Oliver Lehmann <lehmann@ans-netz.de> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: low(er) disk performance with sched_4bsd then with sched_ule Message-ID: <84dead7205091619435c12b528@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050916225219.73b53cd0.lehmann@ans-netz.de> References: <20050914194612.15692485.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20050914222013.178dc4dc.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <84dead72050914135239514c49@mail.gmail.com> <20050915000053.448f251b.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <84dead7205091500152a7c25d1@mail.gmail.com> <20050915172005.072f4bdf.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20050915181238.54b16b4b.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <84dead720509160921732e7f96@mail.gmail.com> <20050916184911.38e2739a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20050916225219.73b53cd0.lehmann@ans-netz.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
ol> Wow, that update to BETA4 did the trick! While running=20 ol> SCHED_4BSD: Fantastic! What is the profile like with the new 4BSD kernel? I'm still puzzled as to how the ULE kernel managed to avoid the bug. --=20 FreeBSD Volunteer, http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?84dead7205091619435c12b528>