When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Jonathon McKitrick
A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better than the existing priority feedback scheduler? NOTE: Please CC me, as I am not currently subscribed. Thanks. jm -- My other computer is your windows box.

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Terry Lambert
Jonathon McKitrick wrote: A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better than the existing priority feedback scheduler? NOTE: Please CC me, as I am not currently subscribed. Thanks. Basically, you

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Jonathon McKitrick
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:17:28AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: | Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a | patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better | than the existing priority feedback scheduler? | |

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Terry Lambert
Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | thrashing, but the result was that the X server had sufficiently | good interactive response to fullfill the move mouse - wiggle | cursor requirement amd avoid cognitive dissonance on the part | of the user attached to the mouse. 8-). Why don't they just add an

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Jonathon McKitrick
| Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-) | Not really. A lot of them are rehashing things we've known | for a long time, and

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Jonathon McKitrick
Sorry, my last email was sent prematurely. I hit 'send' a bit too soon. | Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) I thought only NT did that. I was *trying* to be funny. :-) | Not really. A

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-) SVR4.2 is a totally threaded

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Jonathon McKitrick
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:39:35AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: | On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | | Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) | | I thought only NT-SMP

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 12:11, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:39:35AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: | On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | | Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | | | | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP

Re: When to consider the new scehduler?

2002-08-16 Thread Jonathon McKitrick
| OIC. Just trying to get more information out. Still appreciated. I just didn't want my joke to *totally* go to waste, pathetic though it was. :-) jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body