FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
Hello, What shall I use as a scheduler on it? 4BSD or ULE? I would like to hear from somone who tested both on FreeBSD 6.2 B to RC1 Thank you, -J ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
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. You can try it just for the fun of it, but your problem reports will be met by a grinning we told you so. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On 11/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. You can try it just for the fun of it, but your problem reports will be met by a grinning we told you so. Thank you Andrew, I'm asking because I downloaded PC-BSD 1.3 Beta which is based on FreeBSD 6.1 and the default in kernel is ULE, so I wanted to make sure. Regards, -J ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On 11/26/06, John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
You can try it just for the fun of it, but your problem reports
will be met by a grinning we told you so.
Thank you Andrew,
I'm asking because I downloaded PC-BSD 1.3 Beta which is based on
FreeBSD 6.1 and the default in kernel is ULE, so I wanted to make
sure.
That's strange. I've used ULE for months on many boxes, but
much as I like it, I have to admit there are serious problems
with it. There are different reports, but it's clear you can't use
it in production environments. It might be okay to run it on your
{desk,lap}top system, though, but PC-BSD developers have
yet to comment on their reasoning.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On 11/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/26/06, John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
You can try it just for the fun of it, but your problem reports
will be met by a grinning we told you so.
Thank you Andrew,
I'm asking because I downloaded PC-BSD 1.3 Beta which is based on
FreeBSD 6.1 and the default in kernel is ULE, so I wanted to make
sure.
That's strange. I've used ULE for months on many boxes, but
much as I like it, I have to admit there are serious problems
with it. There are different reports, but it's clear you can't use
it in production environments. It might be okay to run it on your
{desk,lap}top system, though, but PC-BSD developers have
yet to comment on their reasoning.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recommende not to use the ULE for production, months ago, my backup
server start crashing, until someone told me to disable ULE_ and enable the
old 4BSD scheduler, check
this posts:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2006-October/132966.html
My system back to normal after i disable ULE.
Greetings.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 07:32:13PM +0300, John Smith wrote: On 11/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. You can try it just for the fun of it, but your problem reports will be met by a grinning we told you so. Thank you Andrew, I'm asking because I downloaded PC-BSD 1.3 Beta which is based on FreeBSD 6.1 and the default in kernel is ULE, so I wanted to make sure. That's unfortunate :( Kris pgphS6U5l3TT4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:06:57PM +, 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. Kris pgpiH8eWVQf5U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On Sunday 26 November 2006 19:43, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:06:57PM +, 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) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:13:43AM +, RW wrote: On Sunday 26 November 2006 19:43, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:06:57PM +, 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
