On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:13:43AM +0000, RW wrote: > On Sunday 26 November 2006 19:43, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:06:57PM +0000, RW wrote: > > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 12:18, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > > > On 11/26/06, John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > What shall I use as a scheduler on it? 4BSD or ULE? > > > > > > > > The general consensus is you should not touch ULE unless > > > > you're a developer willing to fix some outstanding issues and > > > > maybe take active maintainership of it. > > > > > > I think that's a bit strong. I've used both, off and on, on my Desktop > > > machine and not seen any real difference. > > > > Guess you're one of the lucky ones then. I hope you can understand > > why in general users should not use a kernel feature with known > > problems, and they should at the very least turn it off and reconfirm > > their problems before reporting them, to avoid wasting developer time. > > It might save everyone a lot of time if the GENERIC file entry were changed > to: > > #options SCHED_ULE # ULE scheduler (experimental)
Better yet, it was removed from GENERIC altogether and a warning added to the NOTES file: # SCHED_ULE is a new scheduler that has been designed for SMP and has some # advantages for UP as well. It is intended to replace the 4BSD scheduler # over time. NOTE: SCHED_ULE is currently considered experimental and is # not recommended for production use at this time. Kris
pgpvrk9lpt2lV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
