I have this interesting behavior in the top utility on _both_ my 7.1
and 8.0 FreeBSD servers (updated to latest patches). The interesting
behavior happens only when my kernel is compiled with the ULE
scheduler. It does not happen when the kernel uses the old BSD
scheduler.
Here is a link of a
rthreading enabled in the kernel. The question
>>> is: is there any appreciable performance difference to be expected
>>> with this hardware setup between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD
>>> scheduler? Or does the fact that there is only one core eliminate
>>>
The question
> > is: is there any appreciable performance difference to be expected
> > with this hardware setup between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD
> > scheduler? Or does the fact that there is only one core eliminate
> > any difference in performance characteristics?
>
xpected with this hardware setup
> between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD scheduler? Or does the fact that
> there is only one core eliminate any difference in performance
> characteristics?
I'd guess the second thing. It's not like there's cache to be shared
between cor
n the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD scheduler? Or does the fact that
there is only one core eliminate any difference in performance
characteristics?
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**
* Int
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:17:28 -0700, "Dave Stegner"
wrote:
> I rebuilt the kernel with ULE scheduler, I think.
>
> How can I tell if it is running ULE or 4BSD??
I think that's what you're looking for:
% sysctl kern.sched.name
kern.sched.name
have a stock 7.0 release.
I rebuilt the kernel with ULE scheduler, I think.
How can I tell if it is running ULE or 4BSD??
David R. Stegner
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
in few days old RELENG_7 it's great, much better than anything before.
there are something to fix with realtime priority threads scheduling, i
contacted the author and i think it will be fixed soon.
in case of usual work - just use it. it's very good.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Desmond Chapman wrot
Desmond Chapman wrote:
Anyone with experience using and setting this up, please contact me. I need to learn how to work with and on it.
Replace "options SCHED_4BSD" with "options SCHED_ULE" in your kernel
config file, compile/install kernel in the usual way, reboot. End of story.
Kris
Anyone with experience using and setting this up, please contact me. I need to
learn how to work with and on it.
_
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.s
mith <[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 develop
t;
> > > > 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.
&g
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?
> >
&
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
gt; > > 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
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
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
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 s
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
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
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
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 06:43:14AM -0300, 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 dis
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
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
Evolutio
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Ian Lord wrote:
Are you saying that ULE is slower then 4BSD ?
I'm new to this and when I compiled my kernel, it was "clear" ULE was a
better alternative for performance then 4BSD
Schedulers are one of the hardest things to do right in OS design, as the
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 07:08:12PM -0500, Ian Lord wrote:
> Are you saying that ULE is slower then 4BSD ?
>
> I'm new to this and when I compiled my kernel, it was "clear" ULE was
> a better alternative for performance then 4BSD
Yes, in the workloads I have tested. O
Are you saying that ULE is slower then 4BSD ?
I'm new to this and when I compiled my kernel, it was "clear" ULE was
a better alternative for performance then 4BSD
Thanks
At 19:05 2005-11-09, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:16:31PM -0600, Jon Brisbin wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:16:31PM -0600, Jon Brisbin wrote:
> I can't find any information on how to set the CPU affinity for processes in
> the
> FreeBSD 6 ULE scheduler.
That's because you can't. ULE gives lower performance on the
workloads I have tested anyway.
I can't find any information on how to set the CPU affinity for processes in
the
FreeBSD 6 ULE scheduler.
On the linux box, which we're moving from, I have dual Xeon HTT's that I have
JBoss scheduled round-robin with the CPU affinity set to the first two
processors,
nice -15.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:42:40PM +0300, Andrew P. wrote:
> On 11/5/05, Albert Shih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi anybody
> >
> > All is in the subject...on FreeBSD 6.0 i've see the default generic kernel
> > is compiled with SCHED_4BSD and SCHED_ULE is in comment.
> >
> > Can'I use SCHED_ULE
On 11/5/05, Albert Shih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi anybody
>
> All is in the subject...on FreeBSD 6.0 i've see the default generic kernel
> is compiled with SCHED_4BSD and SCHED_ULE is in comment.
>
> Can'I use SCHED_ULE on 6.0 ? Is he stable now ?
>
> Regards.
> --
> Albert SHIH
> Universite
Hi anybody
All is in the subject...on FreeBSD 6.0 i've see the default generic kernel
is compiled with SCHED_4BSD and SCHED_ULE is in comment.
Can'I use SCHED_ULE on 6.0 ? Is he stable now ?
Regards.
--
Albert SHIH
Universite de Paris 7 (Denis DIDEROT)
U.F.R. de Mathematiques.
Heure local/Local
Doug Poland wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been playing with ULE on 5.3-STABLE and have come up with some
> repeatable issues. To which list should I post these? -STABLE,
> -CURRENT, -QUESTIONS?
Since it's on -stable, I'd suggest freebsd-stable@, like last time
Hello,
I've been playing with ULE on 5.3-STABLE and have come up with some
repeatable issues. To which list should I post these? -STABLE,
-CURRENT, -QUESTIONS?
--
Regards,
Doug
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebs
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:46:20PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Peter Farmer schrieb:
>
> >From http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/errata.html
> >
> >(1 Nov 2004) The ULE scheduler described in the release notes has been
> >completely disabled to discourage it
O. Hartmann wrote:
Peter Farmer schrieb:
From http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/errata.html
(1 Nov 2004) The ULE scheduler described in the release notes has been
completely disabled to discourage its use because it has stability
problems.
HTH
Is there a way to explicitely enable it for
Peter Farmer schrieb:
From http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/errata.html
(1 Nov 2004) The ULE scheduler described in the release notes has been
completely disabled to discourage its use because it has stability
problems.
HTH
Is there a way to explicitely enable it for testing purposes
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 05:50:21PM +0600, musikcom wrote:
> Hello!
> I have some trouble with ULE scheduler. I have installed
> FreeBSD 5.3 When I try to use ULE scheduler (by editing
> GENERIC file), the message "The SCHED_ULE scheduler is
> broken. Please use SCHED_4BSD&q
musikcom wrote:
Hello!
I have some trouble with ULE scheduler. I have installed FreeBSD 5.3
When I try to use ULE scheduler (by editing GENERIC file), the message
"The SCHED_ULE scheduler is broken. Please use SCHED_4BSD" message
appear.
I do these steps:
cd /sys/i386/confOK
ed
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:45:02PM +0800, wrote:
> so what is the difference between 2?i think , ule is not so good as
> they told me ,so slow.
One's a scheduler, one's a thread system. Apples, oranges.
Kris
pgpNLJ2OnQq6a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
so what is the difference between 2?i think , ule is not so good as they told me ,so
slow.
==
263电子邮件－信赖邮自专业___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
41 matches
Mail list logo
