> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:26:39 +1000 (EST) > From: Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
pgpHJpGKTucVI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
