From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5d375e920703311012l41d6647fndbcea417c3d52a7b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:12:14 +0200 From: Uriel To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] slow performance In-Reply-To: <460E927E.4050002@conducive.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <460E927E.4050002@conducive.org> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 38630e44-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > But a guess: ISTR seeing that the Plan9 kernel 'lacked a scheduler'. > That can be inconsequential for some situations, very important for others. Could you please explain this? I'm still baffled as to what you mean. As far as my limited knowledge goes, Plan 9 has had an SMP aware scheduler since ancient times[1](I think before 1st Ed), and in more recent times a real time scheduler[2] has been added. So I'm puzzled as to how Plan 9 could 'lack a scheduler'. I also would recommend at least taking a look at the performance section of http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html uriel [1] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/sleep.html [2] http://purl.org/utwente/fid/1149