Actually I had quoted that, made a reply, and decided that my reply was
too close to a flame and deleted the quote and the nasty reply, because
I couldn't find a nice way to say what I wanted. Oh well, I tried to
keep to a higher level, but... on this topic you seem to be off on an
ego trip. You are not the decider, George Bush is the decider, and the
only time he's not wrong he didn't understand the question. I checked
the schedule, it's not you week to be God.
There are sensible people you respect on other topics, who have the
opinion that there is room for behaviors other than CFS, and who have
created a pluggable scheduler framework which they are trying to hand
you on a platter. And you won't even consider that they might be right,
because you believe there can be one scheduler which is close to optimal
for all loads.
Unfortunately not so, I've been looking at schedulers since MULTICS, and
desktops since the 70s (MP/M), and networked servers since I was the
ARPAnet technical administrator at GE's Corporate R&D Center. And on
desktops response is (and should be king), while on a server, like nntp
or mail, I will happily go from 1ms to 10sec for a message to pass
through the system if only I can pass 30% more messages per hour,
because in virtually all cases transit time in that range is not an
issue. Same thing for DNS, LDAP, etc, only smaller time range. If my
goal is <10ms, I will not sacrifice capacity to do it.
Because people who run servers for a living, and have to live with
limited hardware capacity realize that latency isn't the only issue to
be addressed, and that the policy for degradation of latency vs.
throughput may be very different on one server than another or a desktop.
Because people can't get you to understand that one size doesn't fit all
(and I doubt I've broken through).
The real issue is that you can't imagine that people who don't share
your opinion are not only wrong but don't understand the problem. You
may be right, but when you say anyone who disagrees is wrong by
definition, then you have lost sight of productive technical
differences. When your arguments drop to personal attacks and rants it's
time to look at your technical values.
Exactly, and I'm not the only one who doubts that more than one model
would be useful. I'm sorry you can't see that about CPU schedulers as well.
I don't disagree with you lightly, in this case I think I have a better
superficial understanding of schedulers than you do of how production
servers are used.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
