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.
I
think there is no significant difference on UP between 4BSD and ULE
This may be safe to say, but is inconsistent with the above.
except
perhaps in context switching microbenchmarks where ULE falls behind.
It is safe to say that interactive users cannot notice insignificant
differences. It takes a micro-benchmark to notice possibly-significant
differences of hundreds or even thousands of nanonseconds for context
switching.
ULE may give higher priority to interactive processes, but most loss of
interactivity is caused by blocking on I/O, and there is nothing nothing
a scheduler can do to speed up slow or overloaded devices.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
