Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jul 2006 19:19 UTC
PC-BSD PC-BSD 1.2 has been released. "PC-BSD software is pleased to announce the immediate availability of PC-BSD 1.2 for x86 based processors. PC-BSD 1.2 now utilizes the FreeBSD advanced ULE scheduler and is compiled with optimizations for 686 processors (all support for 386, 486 and 586 microcode is disabled in kernel). This release of PC-BSD ushers in a new era of stability and simplicity for desktop operating systems based on UNIX, making it a solid release for home and business usage."
Thread beginning with comment 142757
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ULE?
by Abaddon on Thu 13th Jul 2006 22:42 UTC
Abaddon
Member since:
2006-06-23

AFAIK ULE sheduler is unstable and unmaintained. I had stability (and also performance) problems with it on FreeBSD 5.4. My friend told me that problems weren't solved in FreeBSD 6.x. I wonder why they decided to use it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ULE?
by jjmckay on Thu 13th Jul 2006 22:50 in reply to "ULE?"
jjmckay Member since:
2005-11-11

That's heresay and nothing more.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ULE?
by atomicplayboy on Thu 13th Jul 2006 23:25 in reply to "RE: ULE?"
atomicplayboy Member since:
2006-04-28

It WAS unstable and unmaintained around the time of the 5-release cycle. So much, in fact, that they removed the capability to build it into your kernel completely. At some point after that, it was picked up by one of the devs who decided to maintain it. I was using it early on in the version 5 days and had problems to say the least. Since then, I have been using the old scheduler and have been reluctant to try again. If PC-BSD is using it though, perhaps it's stable enough to use again?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ULE?
by antik on Thu 13th Jul 2006 23:01 in reply to "ULE?"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

AFAIK ULE sheduler is unstable and unmaintained. I had stability (and also performance) problems with it on FreeBSD 5.4. My friend told me that problems weren't solved in FreeBSD 6.x. I wonder why they decided to use it.

You have point, but it is perfect for desktop usage:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2006-May/12105...

Without proper testing we'd never know how good it is. Hope we can help FreeBSD development in desktop area.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ULE?
by Tuishimi on Fri 14th Jul 2006 02:43 in reply to "ULE?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I purposely rebuilt my PC-BSD FreeBSD 6 kernel to change it to ULE. It ran fine. I actually did not see much of a difference. I actually felt that it seemed more responsive in some cases and less in others. This for that, so to speak.

PC-BSD is great. I have already said recently that I wished I had a PC to run it on, again! That and NetBSD... I wish someone would create a "PC-BSD" version of NetBSD. How flippin' cool would THAT be. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ULE?
by Daniel Seuffert on Fri 14th Jul 2006 11:38 in reply to "RE: ULE?"
Daniel Seuffert Member since:
2005-08-02

Quote: "I wish someone would create a "PC-BSD" version of NetBSD. How flippin' cool would THAT be. ;) "

Please have a look at http://ecbsd.sourceforge.net/index.php?lang=en

HTH, Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 2