Jonathan Horne wrote:
i remember when i first started using freebsd about 2 months ago, the first
kernel i built, i did the ULE (at some articles recommendataion). but, ive
not done it since. i guess i have been noticing a bit of lag on my system
(amd 1800mhz 512rdram, u160 scsi raid0), but nothing unacceptable.
however, since i didnt have a problem with my first kernel that i did, and
your positive response, i decided to go ahead and change out the specified
scheduler in my kernconf, and let 'er rip.
is your system a desktop? were your prevously running the same desktop
configuration on the same box, with the 4BSD? is the ULE scheduler suited
for a server setup as well (my server is also SMP), or is this something that
should be kept to a desktop?
thanks,
jonathan horne
My system is a "desktop" and yes I was previously using the 4BSD
scheduler. As for
whether it is suited for a server environment I would say that depends.
From what
I understand it is an experimental scheduler meant to bring better
performance
to SMP machines but that UP machines may also show some improvement.
If I was using this box as a server for mission critical applications
there are a whole bunch of things I am doing now that I would not be doing.
Before I would use any relatively new configuration on a production
server I would
have to do some reliability testing and benchmarking on a test machine
that I had
configured to test a particular harware/application mix. I would also
be reading what
other people had to say and I would first choose to use something that
was known to
generally work and for which issues were generally know and mostly
understood. Also,
go where the support is. :)
This is basically a test box and a learning platform. There are way too
many applications
loaded on this machine and they are far too varied in nature for me to
single out one aspect
of my configuration and say whether or not it is suitable in a server
configuration. In
addition I wouldn't be able to say whether ULE is suitable for a server
after testing it
on hardware that is definitely not suitable as a server, in my opinion.
I am willing to say that for desktop use the ULE scheduler --seems-- to
work great. But
do keep in mind Mr. Kennaway's comments per this thread. Of course the
4BSD scheduler
works great so I wouldn't switch unless I had a reason to.
--Duane
On Sunday 07 May 2006 04:43, Duane Whitty wrote:
Hi,
I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28).
when I last built 6-STABLE
Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with
512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running
both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and
Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm
updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah,
I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA
I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine
I'm running. Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS
or INVARIANTS turned on)
Well time to rebuild the sources :)
dwpc@ /home/duane>uname -a
FreeBSD dwpc.dwlabs.ca 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #0: Fri Apr 28 18:41:15 ADT
2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DWPC-KERNEL i386
Best Regards,
Duane Whitty
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
