[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 17/11/10 11:22, tom wrote: > > I'd argue that on an older machine doing a couple of things it should > help enormously. I'd argue that new schedulers have been heralded as the new faster GNU/Linux desktop before, when the cause of slowness on my GNU/Linux desktops is almost entirely down to software bloat, and excessive I/O, neither of which a scheduler will reduce. Thus if scheduling isn't the problem, and the default scheduler in Ubuntu Live CD use to do a fairly good job of playing 40 videos simultaneously on low end PC hardware, I'd expect improved scheduling to make almost no difference to subjective experience. Sure as Linus is quoted, if your load average is 50, i.e. you have 50 tasks waiting to run, then sure prioritizing those on your desktop will keep the machine more responsive, trading off the speed with which the other tasks are done. My highest 1 minute load average this morning was 0.24 on relatively old hardware, okay I'm not compiling kernels continuously like Linus, and interactive response is usually excellent. Always happy to see schedule improvements, but mostly interested in what my servers do when disk I/O is slow, and Postfix and Apache both hit their maximum number of processes as a result, and of course memory is tightest at this point, and then cron decides it should do todays backup. Currently they do rather well, as long as you don't want OpenSSH to spawn another process to allow you to login and see what is happening. Simon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq