On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 05:41:04AM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: Content-Description: signed data > On Monday 17 November 2003 05:25, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:39:08AM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: > > Content-Description: signed data > > > > > > > Next I'd like to report is what I already mentioned in "ULE and very bad > > > responsiveness" I followed Jeff Roberson hint and ran setiathome with > > > nice 20. But this didn't really change anything. > > > > ULE has been rock solid for me since Jeff's last > > major update. Of course, I run neither setiathome > > nor KDE. > > > Give setiathome a try! You'll be astonished.
No thanks. It's a waste of CPU cycle. > And I'm sure the difference I _feel_ isn't dependend on kde. If you > don't like kde replace it with our favourite wm/desktop. I prefer fvwm2. ULE works fairly well. > But you won't be able to play two mid to high-quality > mpegs at the same time on a 1GHz machine where 4BSD scheduler does very well! I can assure you that the numerical simulations I run, along with the "make worlds", and compilations of gcc's tree-ssa branch stress the system. I re-install over 100 ports today and the load average was rarely below 5. I was use linux-opera and knews and sylpheed and several other program and noticed nor degradation in responsiveness. Does seti cause a problem if you are not running X (or KDE). > I haven't claimed ULE to be unstable though. I just wanted to highlight some > issues which will be a big problem if 5.2-releas will have ULE as default! If ULE is destined to be the default scheduler in 5-stable, then we need to have more people test it. -- Steve _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
