On Sat, 29 May 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Is there a circumstance where the older SCHED is better then ULE? Yes. I've noticed differing performance properties based on a number of factors, including hardware variation and workload. I've also noticed a couple of bugs in ULE that I'm hoping Jeff Roberson gets a chance to fix at some point, including some issues with load balancing. > Or is the older one something that will eventually just be removed > altogether? > > If the older does have areas in which it is the better, are there any > docs comparing the two? Well, I think it's useful to keep around 4BSD even if only to use as a performance baseline for understanding where ULE is working better or worse. I don't know of any specific documents talking about relative merits: generally, I would consider if a bug if ULE is consistently slower in some form. As such, any document would probably be an excellent bug report :-). As people run into performance issues with -CURRENT, the scheduler is one of the first variables I would ask someone to check, FYI. And in that sense, keeping 4BSD around is extremely valuable. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert_at_fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee ResearchReceived on Sat May 29 2004 - 16:09:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:55 UTC