Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:29:50 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: v0rbiz@icon.bg Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status Message-ID: <20050209122950.331c9351@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <4694.213.222.48.10.1107872002.squirrel@mailgw.icon.bg> References: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081306440.28295@ux11.ltcm.net> <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <4253.213.222.48.10.1107866717.squirrel@mailgw.icon.bg> <20050208155822.29df9373@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <4694.213.222.48.10.1107872002.squirrel@mailgw.icon.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:13:22 +0200 (EET) "Viktor Ivanov" <v0rbiz@icon.bg> wrote: > On Tue, =D4=E5=E2=F0=F3=E0=F0=E8 8, 2005 15:58, Ion-Mihai Tetcu =EA=E0=E7= =E0: > >> I've been using only SCHED_ULE on my UP WS, even when there was #error > >> def. It never broke, not even once :) Though I think there's trouble > >> with SMP and/or HTT. I tried it once on a P4 and it paniced. > >> > >> On the other hand, using SCHED_ULE improves sound quality and general > >> system 'response' concerning GUI... don't know 'bout performance. > > > > By any chance does it help with copying from ata disks on different > > controllers ? For me on large files this brings up "swap_pager: > > indefinite wait buffer" with 4BSD. >=20 > Sorry, can't test this. I know my WS can't compare to a normal server > and I don't have a production server running on SCHED_ULE (excuse the > pun). As I said though, I tried once SCHED_ULE on a P4 with 1 CPU > and HTT enabled and it paniced way too fast. That was when SCHED_ULE > was #error-ed... NP, I'll give ULE and sos's new ATA a try this weekend and see. > As for rtprio, I do set it after I run mplayer, because I run it from > normal user and rtprio is limited to root. Michael says is resolved :) Thanks, --=20 IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050209122950.331c9351>