<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_137241</id>
	<title>Deadline Scheduling Proposed For the Linux Kernel</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256044680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>c1oud writes <i>"At the last <a href="http://www.osadl.org/Dresden-2009.rtlws11-dresden-2009.0.html">Real-Time Linux Workshop</a>, held in September in Dresden, there was a lot of discussion about the possibility of enhancing real-time capabilities of Linux by adding a new scheduling class to the Linux kernel. According to most kernel developers, this new scheduling class should be based on the Earliest Deadline First (EDF) real-time algorithm. The first draft of the scheduling class was called 'SCHED\_EDF,' and it was proposed and discussed on the <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/22/186">Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML)</a> just before the workshop. Recently, a <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/16/161">second version of the scheduling class</a> (called 'SCHED\_DEADLINE,' to meet the request of some kernel developers) was proposed.  Moreover, the code has been moved to a  <a href="http://gitorious.org/sched\_deadline">public git repository on Gitorius</a>. The implementation is part of a <a href="http://www.actors-project.eu/">FP7 European project called ACTORS</a>, and financially supported by the European commission. <a href="http://www.evidence.eu.com/sched\_deadline.html">More details are available</a>." </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>c1oud writes " At the last Real-Time Linux Workshop , held in September in Dresden , there was a lot of discussion about the possibility of enhancing real-time capabilities of Linux by adding a new scheduling class to the Linux kernel .
According to most kernel developers , this new scheduling class should be based on the Earliest Deadline First ( EDF ) real-time algorithm .
The first draft of the scheduling class was called 'SCHED \ _EDF, ' and it was proposed and discussed on the Linux Kernel Mailing List ( LKML ) just before the workshop .
Recently , a second version of the scheduling class ( called 'SCHED \ _DEADLINE, ' to meet the request of some kernel developers ) was proposed .
Moreover , the code has been moved to a public git repository on Gitorius .
The implementation is part of a FP7 European project called ACTORS , and financially supported by the European commission .
More details are available .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c1oud writes "At the last Real-Time Linux Workshop, held in September in Dresden, there was a lot of discussion about the possibility of enhancing real-time capabilities of Linux by adding a new scheduling class to the Linux kernel.
According to most kernel developers, this new scheduling class should be based on the Earliest Deadline First (EDF) real-time algorithm.
The first draft of the scheduling class was called 'SCHED\_EDF,' and it was proposed and discussed on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) just before the workshop.
Recently, a second version of the scheduling class (called 'SCHED\_DEADLINE,' to meet the request of some kernel developers) was proposed.
Moreover, the code has been moved to a  public git repository on Gitorius.
The implementation is part of a FP7 European project called ACTORS, and financially supported by the European commission.
More details are available.
" </sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These algorithms will produce substantially worse overall performance in all workloads. However, they allow absolute deadlines to be set for certain tasks. This is mostly useful for embedded devices -- if you're creating a medical device, or a subsystem for a plane, a 20\% performance hit to guarantee you don't delay critical tasks for a couple seconds and get people killed isn't even a decision worth thinking about.</p><p>This would make Linux a legitimate real time ("RT") kernel. There are RT Linuxes already, but they suck to work with -- I  believe RTLinux (one of the RT variants), for example, requires all RT tasks to be in kernel-space.</p><p>The upshot is that this is huge for Linux in certain business areas (and other RT OSes are currently quite pricey), but totally useless for your desktop or home server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These algorithms will produce substantially worse overall performance in all workloads .
However , they allow absolute deadlines to be set for certain tasks .
This is mostly useful for embedded devices -- if you 're creating a medical device , or a subsystem for a plane , a 20 \ % performance hit to guarantee you do n't delay critical tasks for a couple seconds and get people killed is n't even a decision worth thinking about.This would make Linux a legitimate real time ( " RT " ) kernel .
There are RT Linuxes already , but they suck to work with -- I believe RTLinux ( one of the RT variants ) , for example , requires all RT tasks to be in kernel-space.The upshot is that this is huge for Linux in certain business areas ( and other RT OSes are currently quite pricey ) , but totally useless for your desktop or home server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These algorithms will produce substantially worse overall performance in all workloads.
However, they allow absolute deadlines to be set for certain tasks.
This is mostly useful for embedded devices -- if you're creating a medical device, or a subsystem for a plane, a 20\% performance hit to guarantee you don't delay critical tasks for a couple seconds and get people killed isn't even a decision worth thinking about.This would make Linux a legitimate real time ("RT") kernel.
There are RT Linuxes already, but they suck to work with -- I  believe RTLinux (one of the RT variants), for example, requires all RT tasks to be in kernel-space.The upshot is that this is huge for Linux in certain business areas (and other RT OSes are currently quite pricey), but totally useless for your desktop or home server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809605</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>Permutation Citizen</author>
	<datestamp>1256058660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to this post, with EDF algorithm if you meet some given conditions, you have the guaranty that your deadlines will be met.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to this post , with EDF algorithm if you meet some given conditions , you have the guaranty that your deadlines will be met .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to this post, with EDF algorithm if you meet some given conditions, you have the guaranty that your deadlines will be met.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810319</id>
	<title>Pre-emptive Multitasking</title>
	<author>7bit</author>
	<datestamp>1256061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this scheduling compare to how "Pre-emptive Multitasking" was performed on something like the AmigaOS? Does it allow for the same benefits as have been described for it? And if so, would there be any inevitable downsides to it for how Linux operates and why?</p><p>My Linux knowledge is not yet very deep but I have occasionally read mention here and there of it's multitasking methodology being different from that of many other OS's and that it is part of what keeps it from becoming a desktop entertainment type of PC OS. Is this true? And is the difference really very great anymore? If the scheduling talked about in TFA is too heavy handed, are there any other ways to improve the Linux "Pre-emptive Multitasking" behavior that wouldn't be problematic?</p><p>Or could a scheduling feature like this be made into something that you could turn On/Off at will without having to recompile etc every single time you need it's benefits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this scheduling compare to how " Pre-emptive Multitasking " was performed on something like the AmigaOS ?
Does it allow for the same benefits as have been described for it ?
And if so , would there be any inevitable downsides to it for how Linux operates and why ? My Linux knowledge is not yet very deep but I have occasionally read mention here and there of it 's multitasking methodology being different from that of many other OS 's and that it is part of what keeps it from becoming a desktop entertainment type of PC OS .
Is this true ?
And is the difference really very great anymore ?
If the scheduling talked about in TFA is too heavy handed , are there any other ways to improve the Linux " Pre-emptive Multitasking " behavior that would n't be problematic ? Or could a scheduling feature like this be made into something that you could turn On/Off at will without having to recompile etc every single time you need it 's benefits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this scheduling compare to how "Pre-emptive Multitasking" was performed on something like the AmigaOS?
Does it allow for the same benefits as have been described for it?
And if so, would there be any inevitable downsides to it for how Linux operates and why?My Linux knowledge is not yet very deep but I have occasionally read mention here and there of it's multitasking methodology being different from that of many other OS's and that it is part of what keeps it from becoming a desktop entertainment type of PC OS.
Is this true?
And is the difference really very great anymore?
If the scheduling talked about in TFA is too heavy handed, are there any other ways to improve the Linux "Pre-emptive Multitasking" behavior that wouldn't be problematic?Or could a scheduling feature like this be made into something that you could turn On/Off at will without having to recompile etc every single time you need it's benefits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808651</id>
	<title>Re:Linus won't allow that</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1256055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is alright Ingo; you dont need to snicker anonymously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is alright Ingo ; you dont need to snicker anonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is alright Ingo; you dont need to snicker anonymously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807359</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a unique scheduler?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256050920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deadline scheduling is well established and has been done many times, in many flavours on other OSes.  It's probably even been done on Linux before.  But if this one gets upstream with the blessing of the kernel community, it would enhance Linux for everyone rather than just those running particular kernel patches.</p><p>Linux seems to be having a lot of realtime-related work (see PREEMPT-RT, a somewhat separate but related area of work) done, which is interesting - I would have said that the conventional wisdom was that large, general-purpose OSes cannot be realtime-ified.  It seems like certain parties are determined to prove this wrong - and it's looking to me somewhat like getting to "good enough" realtime behaviour will make large segments of users happy even though it's perhaps unlikely to ever replace ground-up realtime OS designs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deadline scheduling is well established and has been done many times , in many flavours on other OSes .
It 's probably even been done on Linux before .
But if this one gets upstream with the blessing of the kernel community , it would enhance Linux for everyone rather than just those running particular kernel patches.Linux seems to be having a lot of realtime-related work ( see PREEMPT-RT , a somewhat separate but related area of work ) done , which is interesting - I would have said that the conventional wisdom was that large , general-purpose OSes can not be realtime-ified .
It seems like certain parties are determined to prove this wrong - and it 's looking to me somewhat like getting to " good enough " realtime behaviour will make large segments of users happy even though it 's perhaps unlikely to ever replace ground-up realtime OS designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deadline scheduling is well established and has been done many times, in many flavours on other OSes.
It's probably even been done on Linux before.
But if this one gets upstream with the blessing of the kernel community, it would enhance Linux for everyone rather than just those running particular kernel patches.Linux seems to be having a lot of realtime-related work (see PREEMPT-RT, a somewhat separate but related area of work) done, which is interesting - I would have said that the conventional wisdom was that large, general-purpose OSes cannot be realtime-ified.
It seems like certain parties are determined to prove this wrong - and it's looking to me somewhat like getting to "good enough" realtime behaviour will make large segments of users happy even though it's perhaps unlikely to ever replace ground-up realtime OS designs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807141</id>
	<title>Linus won't allow that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember Con Kolivas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Con Kolivas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Con Kolivas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808725</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a unique scheduler?</title>
	<author>Mr Z</author>
	<datestamp>1256056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they can tie UI elements to a deadline such as "before the next screen refresh" to keep the UI snappy at (nearly) all times, I don't mind losing some background throughput.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can tie UI elements to a deadline such as " before the next screen refresh " to keep the UI snappy at ( nearly ) all times , I do n't mind losing some background throughput .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can tie UI elements to a deadline such as "before the next screen refresh" to keep the UI snappy at (nearly) all times, I don't mind losing some background throughput.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807095</id>
	<title>What I'm not clear about</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1256049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this suitable as a general purpose scheduler or is it just for real-time systems?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this suitable as a general purpose scheduler or is it just for real-time systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this suitable as a general purpose scheduler or is it just for real-time systems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807525</id>
	<title>LoL</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1256051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what all the fuss is about. I just use CRON....</p><p>Thank you, I won't be here all week...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what all the fuss is about .
I just use CRON....Thank you , I wo n't be here all week.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what all the fuss is about.
I just use CRON....Thank you, I won't be here all week...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29817577</id>
	<title>Oh it's the daily KOS huh?</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1256047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcyirdM1UI0" title="youtube.com">I love the daily KOS. The question is why does the CIA need a leftist blog?.</a> [youtube.com] <br> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK6CinsGYC0" title="youtube.com">Oh well</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the daily KOS .
The question is why does the CIA need a leftist blog ? .
[ youtube.com ] Oh well [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the daily KOS.
The question is why does the CIA need a leftist blog?.
[youtube.com]  Oh well [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29820783</id>
	<title>Re:What to do get a try</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256120460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>!informative, nobody's talking about the IO scheduler here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>! informative , nobody 's talking about the IO scheduler here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>!informative, nobody's talking about the IO scheduler here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807197</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1256050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on the type of work load. Different schedulers are good for different tasks. Deadline scheduling is good for real time because it says "The job must be done by x time". In contrast, the Anticipatory scheduler tries to predict the next disk read, which may be good for streaming large files. The CFQ scheduler (the default) tries to balance everything out between extremes. There are a few other schedulers available as well. The scheduler can be selected on the kernel command line or from the bootloader. Google for it, there's plenty of info about it online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the type of work load .
Different schedulers are good for different tasks .
Deadline scheduling is good for real time because it says " The job must be done by x time " .
In contrast , the Anticipatory scheduler tries to predict the next disk read , which may be good for streaming large files .
The CFQ scheduler ( the default ) tries to balance everything out between extremes .
There are a few other schedulers available as well .
The scheduler can be selected on the kernel command line or from the bootloader .
Google for it , there 's plenty of info about it online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the type of work load.
Different schedulers are good for different tasks.
Deadline scheduling is good for real time because it says "The job must be done by x time".
In contrast, the Anticipatory scheduler tries to predict the next disk read, which may be good for streaming large files.
The CFQ scheduler (the default) tries to balance everything out between extremes.
There are a few other schedulers available as well.
The scheduler can be selected on the kernel command line or from the bootloader.
Google for it, there's plenty of info about it online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810093</id>
	<title>Last Windows equivalent was V3.11</title>
	<author>DanielSmedegaardBuus</author>
	<datestamp>1256060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly right.</p><p>I used to work at a video duplicating plant where we controlled our source machines (Beta, DigiBeta, C1s, D2s, etc.) via a central computer. We had about 20 source machines providing movies, commercials, logos, and trailers to over 4000 VHS recorders divided into 14 racks.</p><p>Until we got the centralized computer management thingie, we used manual switchboards and our skills to start, synchronize, and switch between, different source machines providing logos, trailers, commercials, and features, making sure each "item" was properly synchronized after each other.</p><p>This was not so difficult with just trailers before a film, but if you had two source reels that needed to be switched in the middle of a movie, you had to make damn sure you didn't switch sources more than a couple of frames out of sync, or you'd get a really bad copy. It was a fun little game, but the computerized system, of course, made the whole thing much easier and much more accurate.</p><p>But of course, this accuracy depended on the accuracy of the OS the system ran on. A running video player controlled via RF over BNC cables doesn't provide interrupts, the entire thing had to be timed to the frame from within the application itself. And not for one source and one target, but for M sources and M targets. So you needed an OS which absolutely guaranteed a time slice from the kernel at an absolutely non-negotiable point in time.</p><p>That, at the time, would be Windows 3.11<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) And the time (when I left) was 1998. We were wondering at the time why the hell they'd use Windows 3.11 for that task, but I'm pretty sure they're still using that old thing, at least I don't see any reason why they wouldn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly right.I used to work at a video duplicating plant where we controlled our source machines ( Beta , DigiBeta , C1s , D2s , etc .
) via a central computer .
We had about 20 source machines providing movies , commercials , logos , and trailers to over 4000 VHS recorders divided into 14 racks.Until we got the centralized computer management thingie , we used manual switchboards and our skills to start , synchronize , and switch between , different source machines providing logos , trailers , commercials , and features , making sure each " item " was properly synchronized after each other.This was not so difficult with just trailers before a film , but if you had two source reels that needed to be switched in the middle of a movie , you had to make damn sure you did n't switch sources more than a couple of frames out of sync , or you 'd get a really bad copy .
It was a fun little game , but the computerized system , of course , made the whole thing much easier and much more accurate.But of course , this accuracy depended on the accuracy of the OS the system ran on .
A running video player controlled via RF over BNC cables does n't provide interrupts , the entire thing had to be timed to the frame from within the application itself .
And not for one source and one target , but for M sources and M targets .
So you needed an OS which absolutely guaranteed a time slice from the kernel at an absolutely non-negotiable point in time.That , at the time , would be Windows 3.11 : ) And the time ( when I left ) was 1998 .
We were wondering at the time why the hell they 'd use Windows 3.11 for that task , but I 'm pretty sure they 're still using that old thing , at least I do n't see any reason why they would n't ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly right.I used to work at a video duplicating plant where we controlled our source machines (Beta, DigiBeta, C1s, D2s, etc.
) via a central computer.
We had about 20 source machines providing movies, commercials, logos, and trailers to over 4000 VHS recorders divided into 14 racks.Until we got the centralized computer management thingie, we used manual switchboards and our skills to start, synchronize, and switch between, different source machines providing logos, trailers, commercials, and features, making sure each "item" was properly synchronized after each other.This was not so difficult with just trailers before a film, but if you had two source reels that needed to be switched in the middle of a movie, you had to make damn sure you didn't switch sources more than a couple of frames out of sync, or you'd get a really bad copy.
It was a fun little game, but the computerized system, of course, made the whole thing much easier and much more accurate.But of course, this accuracy depended on the accuracy of the OS the system ran on.
A running video player controlled via RF over BNC cables doesn't provide interrupts, the entire thing had to be timed to the frame from within the application itself.
And not for one source and one target, but for M sources and M targets.
So you needed an OS which absolutely guaranteed a time slice from the kernel at an absolutely non-negotiable point in time.That, at the time, would be Windows 3.11 :) And the time (when I left) was 1998.
We were wondering at the time why the hell they'd use Windows 3.11 for that task, but I'm pretty sure they're still using that old thing, at least I don't see any reason why they wouldn't ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807105</id>
	<title>being back at 0 is now called delaying retirement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the fake weather is still unacknowledged/not a topic. on&amp;on it goos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the fake weather is still unacknowledged/not a topic .
on&amp;on it goos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fake weather is still unacknowledged/not a topic.
on&amp;on it goos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29817715</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The desktop scheduler may also be tweaked to try and make sure interactive tasks respond quickly</p></div><p>BFS!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The desktop scheduler may also be tweaked to try and make sure interactive tasks respond quicklyBFS !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The desktop scheduler may also be tweaked to try and make sure interactive tasks respond quicklyBFS!
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807931</id>
	<title>This is great!</title>
	<author>Zebedeu</author>
	<datestamp>1256053200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for my Linux installation to become at least 80\% more efficient with this scheduler.</p><p>I know that I become more efficient by at least that amount when a deadline approaches!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for my Linux installation to become at least 80 \ % more efficient with this scheduler.I know that I become more efficient by at least that amount when a deadline approaches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for my Linux installation to become at least 80\% more efficient with this scheduler.I know that I become more efficient by at least that amount when a deadline approaches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807299</id>
	<title>Apple store is down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New products today! Fuck you Windows 7!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New products today !
Fuck you Windows 7 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New products today!
Fuck you Windows 7!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29821611</id>
	<title>Re:What to do get a try</title>
	<author>zigurat667</author>
	<datestamp>1256129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you're using is the deadline IO-Scheduler, not the CPU Scheduler mentioned in TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're using is the deadline IO-Scheduler , not the CPU Scheduler mentioned in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're using is the deadline IO-Scheduler, not the CPU Scheduler mentioned in TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807065</id>
	<title>European Projects</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU-funded projects are somewhat interesting in my experience.  They tend to fund both academics and researchers from industry to do stuff and the projects tend to be more focused on practical results than a normal project funded by a research council.  They can still generate research papers, etc, but there's more of an emphasis on producing new code that can actually be *used* to do stuff that wasn't available before.  Whereas more academic research normally focuses on getting the code sufficiently robust that papers can be published about it, then it's often forgotten.</p><p>I think the more practically focused work of this kind is valuable and would like to see more.  It is less "valuable", academically and as such I suspect academics are less inclined to attribute prestige to those who have worked on it.  It would be nice to see a bit more glory given to folks who work on these projects (disclaimer, I have done a *very* small amount of work on one myself) as a valid direction vs industry or academia.  Also, this mode of development does remind me a little of some of RMS's writings about how Free Software development could be funded - here we have effectively a government body giving money to worthy causes, as represented by a team of interested experts, to enhance open source software for everyone involved in reasonably directed ways.  Ideally it'd be nice to see "get stuff upstream" be a completion goal for these projects, I'm not sure to what extent that is already true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU-funded projects are somewhat interesting in my experience .
They tend to fund both academics and researchers from industry to do stuff and the projects tend to be more focused on practical results than a normal project funded by a research council .
They can still generate research papers , etc , but there 's more of an emphasis on producing new code that can actually be * used * to do stuff that was n't available before .
Whereas more academic research normally focuses on getting the code sufficiently robust that papers can be published about it , then it 's often forgotten.I think the more practically focused work of this kind is valuable and would like to see more .
It is less " valuable " , academically and as such I suspect academics are less inclined to attribute prestige to those who have worked on it .
It would be nice to see a bit more glory given to folks who work on these projects ( disclaimer , I have done a * very * small amount of work on one myself ) as a valid direction vs industry or academia .
Also , this mode of development does remind me a little of some of RMS 's writings about how Free Software development could be funded - here we have effectively a government body giving money to worthy causes , as represented by a team of interested experts , to enhance open source software for everyone involved in reasonably directed ways .
Ideally it 'd be nice to see " get stuff upstream " be a completion goal for these projects , I 'm not sure to what extent that is already true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU-funded projects are somewhat interesting in my experience.
They tend to fund both academics and researchers from industry to do stuff and the projects tend to be more focused on practical results than a normal project funded by a research council.
They can still generate research papers, etc, but there's more of an emphasis on producing new code that can actually be *used* to do stuff that wasn't available before.
Whereas more academic research normally focuses on getting the code sufficiently robust that papers can be published about it, then it's often forgotten.I think the more practically focused work of this kind is valuable and would like to see more.
It is less "valuable", academically and as such I suspect academics are less inclined to attribute prestige to those who have worked on it.
It would be nice to see a bit more glory given to folks who work on these projects (disclaimer, I have done a *very* small amount of work on one myself) as a valid direction vs industry or academia.
Also, this mode of development does remind me a little of some of RMS's writings about how Free Software development could be funded - here we have effectively a government body giving money to worthy causes, as represented by a team of interested experts, to enhance open source software for everyone involved in reasonably directed ways.
Ideally it'd be nice to see "get stuff upstream" be a completion goal for these projects, I'm not sure to what extent that is already true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29853893</id>
	<title>Is this really good as the rt patch for desktops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256313180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a genuine realtime kernel here (2.6.29-rt23), and I can tell you it kicks ass.</p><p>Prior to using a realtime kernel, some low priority background tasks like Tor often got little CPU time on my quad-core machine - even when the machine was idle. Worse, high priority tasks (eg. games) would often stop for such nonsense as their own disk activity. Furthermore, the active process count alone adversely affected performance - setting 50\% of my processes to idle priority trippled performance of tasks given priorities as high as -19.</p><p>After getting a realtime kernel, even idle tasks could soak up any leftover CPU cycles. Tor reliability went from one page in fifteen successfully downloading to 9 out of 10 with sufficient latency and bandwidth to handle YouTube and other video sites. Games now perform smoothly even while doing full blown disk backups.</p><p>The effect generally seems to be that non-realtime systems spend too much time going through the process list to achieve low latencies. Now I have serious doubts that any hybrid scheduler that doesn't enforce realtime preemption on lower priority tasks - not to mention the kernel itself - is going to compare with my system.</p><p>Getting the realtime patches to mainline status would probably be better for everyone than semi-adequate jobs that can only reduce interest in true hard realtime systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a genuine realtime kernel here ( 2.6.29-rt23 ) , and I can tell you it kicks ass.Prior to using a realtime kernel , some low priority background tasks like Tor often got little CPU time on my quad-core machine - even when the machine was idle .
Worse , high priority tasks ( eg .
games ) would often stop for such nonsense as their own disk activity .
Furthermore , the active process count alone adversely affected performance - setting 50 \ % of my processes to idle priority trippled performance of tasks given priorities as high as -19.After getting a realtime kernel , even idle tasks could soak up any leftover CPU cycles .
Tor reliability went from one page in fifteen successfully downloading to 9 out of 10 with sufficient latency and bandwidth to handle YouTube and other video sites .
Games now perform smoothly even while doing full blown disk backups.The effect generally seems to be that non-realtime systems spend too much time going through the process list to achieve low latencies .
Now I have serious doubts that any hybrid scheduler that does n't enforce realtime preemption on lower priority tasks - not to mention the kernel itself - is going to compare with my system.Getting the realtime patches to mainline status would probably be better for everyone than semi-adequate jobs that can only reduce interest in true hard realtime systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a genuine realtime kernel here (2.6.29-rt23), and I can tell you it kicks ass.Prior to using a realtime kernel, some low priority background tasks like Tor often got little CPU time on my quad-core machine - even when the machine was idle.
Worse, high priority tasks (eg.
games) would often stop for such nonsense as their own disk activity.
Furthermore, the active process count alone adversely affected performance - setting 50\% of my processes to idle priority trippled performance of tasks given priorities as high as -19.After getting a realtime kernel, even idle tasks could soak up any leftover CPU cycles.
Tor reliability went from one page in fifteen successfully downloading to 9 out of 10 with sufficient latency and bandwidth to handle YouTube and other video sites.
Games now perform smoothly even while doing full blown disk backups.The effect generally seems to be that non-realtime systems spend too much time going through the process list to achieve low latencies.
Now I have serious doubts that any hybrid scheduler that doesn't enforce realtime preemption on lower priority tasks - not to mention the kernel itself - is going to compare with my system.Getting the realtime patches to mainline status would probably be better for everyone than semi-adequate jobs that can only reduce interest in true hard realtime systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807019</id>
	<title>Is this a unique scheduler?</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1256049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has a deadline based scheduler been done before?  It seems like an excellent idea for time sensitive (real time) processing.  I have worked with RT os's before, iRMX mostly, and always wondered how the scheduling worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has a deadline based scheduler been done before ?
It seems like an excellent idea for time sensitive ( real time ) processing .
I have worked with RT os 's before , iRMX mostly , and always wondered how the scheduling worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has a deadline based scheduler been done before?
It seems like an excellent idea for time sensitive (real time) processing.
I have worked with RT os's before, iRMX mostly, and always wondered how the scheduling worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807127</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>markkezner</author>
	<datestamp>1256049900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether or not this scheduler is better depends on what you're trying to do. <br> <br>
The proposed scheduler intends to work better for real-time apps, where the correctness of the algorithm depends on how timely the data gets processed. Low-latency audio is a good example of this, as a dropped or late packet of audio results in a nasty audible pop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not this scheduler is better depends on what you 're trying to do .
The proposed scheduler intends to work better for real-time apps , where the correctness of the algorithm depends on how timely the data gets processed .
Low-latency audio is a good example of this , as a dropped or late packet of audio results in a nasty audible pop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not this scheduler is better depends on what you're trying to do.
The proposed scheduler intends to work better for real-time apps, where the correctness of the algorithm depends on how timely the data gets processed.
Low-latency audio is a good example of this, as a dropped or late packet of audio results in a nasty audible pop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807425</id>
	<title>RTAI?</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1256051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this thing going to replace <a href="https://www.rtai.org/" title="rtai.org">https://www.rtai.org/</a> [rtai.org] completely?</p><p>More importantly, can <a href="http://linuxcnc.org/" title="linuxcnc.org">http://linuxcnc.org/</a> [linuxcnc.org] a CNC software, benefit from this extension?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this thing going to replace https : //www.rtai.org/ [ rtai.org ] completely ? More importantly , can http : //linuxcnc.org/ [ linuxcnc.org ] a CNC software , benefit from this extension ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this thing going to replace https://www.rtai.org/ [rtai.org] completely?More importantly, can http://linuxcnc.org/ [linuxcnc.org] a CNC software, benefit from this extension?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807953</id>
	<title>Re:We already have one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, that's an I/O scheduler.  TFA is about a CPU scheduler.  Who modded this informative?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , that 's an I/O scheduler .
TFA is about a CPU scheduler .
Who modded this informative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, that's an I/O scheduler.
TFA is about a CPU scheduler.
Who modded this informative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810671</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure it would be totally useless for the desktop? Isn't real-time scheduling useful for music work? (in order to gain low latency)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure it would be totally useless for the desktop ?
Is n't real-time scheduling useful for music work ?
( in order to gain low latency )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure it would be totally useless for the desktop?
Isn't real-time scheduling useful for music work?
(in order to gain low latency)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808991</id>
	<title>Re:European Projects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In which EU do you live in??? Valuable? Practical results?? C'mon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In which EU do you live in ? ? ?
Valuable ? Practical results ? ?
C'mon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In which EU do you live in???
Valuable? Practical results??
C'mon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810475</id>
	<title>What to do get a try</title>
	<author>Fri13</author>
	<datestamp>1256061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did swith from CFS to Deadline about week ago. I didn't even know this is now suggested. I just wanted to try does it help situation at all. Somehow I have feeled that CFQ has slowed my system.</p><p>You can swtich the scheduler in running system, no need to even logout or restart. This is one reason why I love Linux OS (monolithic kernel = OS).</p><p>became a root (or use sudo if it is a must).</p><p>First to check out what scheduler you are currently using and what are available on your Linux OS:</p><p><b>cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler</b></p><p>then switch to deadline by simply giving command:</p><p><b>echo deadline &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler</b></p><p>The Linux OS will first execute all currently running jobs with old scheduler what it was doing and then switch to new scheduler. On my system, it was right away because I was not running any heavy tasks.</p><p>check again has the switch be done.</p><p><b>cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler</b></p><p>And you should see [deadline] and not [cfq]</p><p>That's it. Simply as that. But when you reboot the Linux OS, you need to do that again or then you can pass that to GRUB to order Linux OS to start with that scheduler.</p><p>By adding in menu.lts option, to same line what starts by "kernel". To the end of that line just place this:</p><p><b>elevator=deadline</b> So it is the last on that line. Then it will be the used scheduler of Linux OS for all process just from begin of system boot.</p><p>On my system, the speedup is good when running few applicatios only. But when multitasking few I/O apps, I got feeling it is slower. Like running a database sync, watching video and updating system packages made few hickups. Thats why I am littlebit curious this change by default. And I would like to test the BFS.</p><p>and CFQ is better on multiuser environments than deadline.</p><p>But this is the current one and mayby the newer should be tested first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did swith from CFS to Deadline about week ago .
I did n't even know this is now suggested .
I just wanted to try does it help situation at all .
Somehow I have feeled that CFQ has slowed my system.You can swtich the scheduler in running system , no need to even logout or restart .
This is one reason why I love Linux OS ( monolithic kernel = OS ) .became a root ( or use sudo if it is a must ) .First to check out what scheduler you are currently using and what are available on your Linux OS : cat /sys/block/sda/queue/schedulerthen switch to deadline by simply giving command : echo deadline &gt; /sys/block/sda/queue/schedulerThe Linux OS will first execute all currently running jobs with old scheduler what it was doing and then switch to new scheduler .
On my system , it was right away because I was not running any heavy tasks.check again has the switch be done.cat /sys/block/sda/queue/schedulerAnd you should see [ deadline ] and not [ cfq ] That 's it .
Simply as that .
But when you reboot the Linux OS , you need to do that again or then you can pass that to GRUB to order Linux OS to start with that scheduler.By adding in menu.lts option , to same line what starts by " kernel " .
To the end of that line just place this : elevator = deadline So it is the last on that line .
Then it will be the used scheduler of Linux OS for all process just from begin of system boot.On my system , the speedup is good when running few applicatios only .
But when multitasking few I/O apps , I got feeling it is slower .
Like running a database sync , watching video and updating system packages made few hickups .
Thats why I am littlebit curious this change by default .
And I would like to test the BFS.and CFQ is better on multiuser environments than deadline.But this is the current one and mayby the newer should be tested first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did swith from CFS to Deadline about week ago.
I didn't even know this is now suggested.
I just wanted to try does it help situation at all.
Somehow I have feeled that CFQ has slowed my system.You can swtich the scheduler in running system, no need to even logout or restart.
This is one reason why I love Linux OS (monolithic kernel = OS).became a root (or use sudo if it is a must).First to check out what scheduler you are currently using and what are available on your Linux OS:cat /sys/block/sda/queue/schedulerthen switch to deadline by simply giving command:echo deadline &gt; /sys/block/sda/queue/schedulerThe Linux OS will first execute all currently running jobs with old scheduler what it was doing and then switch to new scheduler.
On my system, it was right away because I was not running any heavy tasks.check again has the switch be done.cat /sys/block/sda/queue/schedulerAnd you should see [deadline] and not [cfq]That's it.
Simply as that.
But when you reboot the Linux OS, you need to do that again or then you can pass that to GRUB to order Linux OS to start with that scheduler.By adding in menu.lts option, to same line what starts by "kernel".
To the end of that line just place this:elevator=deadline So it is the last on that line.
Then it will be the used scheduler of Linux OS for all process just from begin of system boot.On my system, the speedup is good when running few applicatios only.
But when multitasking few I/O apps, I got feeling it is slower.
Like running a database sync, watching video and updating system packages made few hickups.
Thats why I am littlebit curious this change by default.
And I would like to test the BFS.and CFQ is better on multiuser environments than deadline.But this is the current one and mayby the newer should be tested first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806963</id>
	<title>Slashdot</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1256049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Misleading title, just 'cause they can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Misleading title , just 'cause they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Misleading title, just 'cause they can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808857</id>
	<title>Re:What I'm not clear about</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256056380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is this suitable as a general purpose scheduler or is it just for real-time systems?</p></div></blockquote><p>Its not a scheduler, its a scheduling <i>class</i> for the existing Linux scheduler. A scheduler can support several different scheduling classes for processes. The current Linux scheduler supports two (Round Robin and FIFO) designed for real-time processes as well as the base one for regular processes, as I understand it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this suitable as a general purpose scheduler or is it just for real-time systems ? Its not a scheduler , its a scheduling class for the existing Linux scheduler .
A scheduler can support several different scheduling classes for processes .
The current Linux scheduler supports two ( Round Robin and FIFO ) designed for real-time processes as well as the base one for regular processes , as I understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this suitable as a general purpose scheduler or is it just for real-time systems?Its not a scheduler, its a scheduling class for the existing Linux scheduler.
A scheduler can support several different scheduling classes for processes.
The current Linux scheduler supports two (Round Robin and FIFO) designed for real-time processes as well as the base one for regular processes, as I understand it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808253</id>
	<title>You won't ever beat the OpenBSD team.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29813001</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1256070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1970 just left a message. It says, "You're Welcome."</htmltext>
<tokenext>1970 just left a message .
It says , " You 're Welcome .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1970 just left a message.
It says, "You're Welcome.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807301</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've not read TFA yet but will try not to spout rubbish<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Deadline-based scheduling is good for realtime processing and not necessarily better for your desktop or server.  "Realtime" doesn't mean fast / high throughput and doesn't *necessarily* mean low latency.  What it really means is "predictable", with low latency potentially being important.  A server or desktop scheduling algorithm often does all kinds of crazy scaling of priorities according to process behaviour in the past, etc - it aims to keep processes running on the CPU as much as possible so that your overall performance is good.  The desktop scheduler may also be tweaked to try and make sure interactive tasks respond quickly</p><p>Typically a realtime scheduling algorithm is more "stupid" and therefore more predictable, so applications that need regular helpings of CPU can run without the behaviour of the scheduler disrupting their operation.  Linux currently supports realtime scheduling through "round robin" and "first-in-first-out" classes, which are extremely "stupid" scheduling algorithms but useful in some cases.  Realtime tasks run according to the chosen algorithm, then the normal desktop/server scheduler handles other tasks.  It sounds to me like the proposal is to add a slightly more intelligent realtime scheduler allowing administrators and applications to control realtime behaviour differently when necessary.  It doesn't sound like they're proposing replacing the main scheduling algorithm, although some OSes have played with using deadline-based scheduling exclusively.</p><p>An EDF algorithm assigns each task a deadline and tries to always schedule the task whose deadline will expire soonest.  Using a periodic deadline you can effectively specify stuff like "I need to be scheduled every 50ms, if at all possible" and the scheduler will try to make sure this happens.  If you are, for instance, doing video streaming or interacting with a hardware buffer or controlling a robot arm you might have these requirements.  In these cases, getting the CPU regularly is much more important than getting lots of CPU on average, which is why just renicing isn't sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not read TFA yet but will try not to spout rubbish ; - ) Deadline-based scheduling is good for realtime processing and not necessarily better for your desktop or server .
" Realtime " does n't mean fast / high throughput and does n't * necessarily * mean low latency .
What it really means is " predictable " , with low latency potentially being important .
A server or desktop scheduling algorithm often does all kinds of crazy scaling of priorities according to process behaviour in the past , etc - it aims to keep processes running on the CPU as much as possible so that your overall performance is good .
The desktop scheduler may also be tweaked to try and make sure interactive tasks respond quicklyTypically a realtime scheduling algorithm is more " stupid " and therefore more predictable , so applications that need regular helpings of CPU can run without the behaviour of the scheduler disrupting their operation .
Linux currently supports realtime scheduling through " round robin " and " first-in-first-out " classes , which are extremely " stupid " scheduling algorithms but useful in some cases .
Realtime tasks run according to the chosen algorithm , then the normal desktop/server scheduler handles other tasks .
It sounds to me like the proposal is to add a slightly more intelligent realtime scheduler allowing administrators and applications to control realtime behaviour differently when necessary .
It does n't sound like they 're proposing replacing the main scheduling algorithm , although some OSes have played with using deadline-based scheduling exclusively.An EDF algorithm assigns each task a deadline and tries to always schedule the task whose deadline will expire soonest .
Using a periodic deadline you can effectively specify stuff like " I need to be scheduled every 50ms , if at all possible " and the scheduler will try to make sure this happens .
If you are , for instance , doing video streaming or interacting with a hardware buffer or controlling a robot arm you might have these requirements .
In these cases , getting the CPU regularly is much more important than getting lots of CPU on average , which is why just renicing is n't sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not read TFA yet but will try not to spout rubbish ;-)Deadline-based scheduling is good for realtime processing and not necessarily better for your desktop or server.
"Realtime" doesn't mean fast / high throughput and doesn't *necessarily* mean low latency.
What it really means is "predictable", with low latency potentially being important.
A server or desktop scheduling algorithm often does all kinds of crazy scaling of priorities according to process behaviour in the past, etc - it aims to keep processes running on the CPU as much as possible so that your overall performance is good.
The desktop scheduler may also be tweaked to try and make sure interactive tasks respond quicklyTypically a realtime scheduling algorithm is more "stupid" and therefore more predictable, so applications that need regular helpings of CPU can run without the behaviour of the scheduler disrupting their operation.
Linux currently supports realtime scheduling through "round robin" and "first-in-first-out" classes, which are extremely "stupid" scheduling algorithms but useful in some cases.
Realtime tasks run according to the chosen algorithm, then the normal desktop/server scheduler handles other tasks.
It sounds to me like the proposal is to add a slightly more intelligent realtime scheduler allowing administrators and applications to control realtime behaviour differently when necessary.
It doesn't sound like they're proposing replacing the main scheduling algorithm, although some OSes have played with using deadline-based scheduling exclusively.An EDF algorithm assigns each task a deadline and tries to always schedule the task whose deadline will expire soonest.
Using a periodic deadline you can effectively specify stuff like "I need to be scheduled every 50ms, if at all possible" and the scheduler will try to make sure this happens.
If you are, for instance, doing video streaming or interacting with a hardware buffer or controlling a robot arm you might have these requirements.
In these cases, getting the CPU regularly is much more important than getting lots of CPU on average, which is why just renicing isn't sufficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29811599</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1256065560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This begs the question though: why is this specific-purpose scheduler being looked at while specific-purpose schedulers focusing on desktop use (as opposed to server use, which is what Linux scheduling is currently optimized for) have been disregarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This begs the question though : why is this specific-purpose scheduler being looked at while specific-purpose schedulers focusing on desktop use ( as opposed to server use , which is what Linux scheduling is currently optimized for ) have been disregarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This begs the question though: why is this specific-purpose scheduler being looked at while specific-purpose schedulers focusing on desktop use (as opposed to server use, which is what Linux scheduling is currently optimized for) have been disregarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29820545</id>
	<title>Re:European Projects</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1256117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, I think it is actually the other way around. Look at secure authentication over a network: which project was purely academic, and which project was a typical EU endeavour? And which project is currently in active practical use?</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , I think it is actually the other way around .
Look at secure authentication over a network : which project was purely academic , and which project was a typical EU endeavour ?
And which project is currently in active practical use ?
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, I think it is actually the other way around.
Look at secure authentication over a network: which project was purely academic, and which project was a typical EU endeavour?
And which project is currently in active practical use?
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812539</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The upshot is that this is huge for Linux in certain business areas (and other RT OSes are currently quite pricey), but totally useless for your desktop or home server.</i></p><p>I don't think so. If this means we'll get a pluggable scheduler architecture in Linux, i'm all for it.</p><p>I thought it was all hogwash until i tried Ken Colivas' <a href="http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt" title="kolivas.org">BFS patch</a> [kolivas.org]. The difference it makes on a desktop system is notable, and it clearly demonstrates that having a single scheduling solution for a kernel oriented for everything from embedded systems to desktops to 4096-CPUs servers is insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The upshot is that this is huge for Linux in certain business areas ( and other RT OSes are currently quite pricey ) , but totally useless for your desktop or home server.I do n't think so .
If this means we 'll get a pluggable scheduler architecture in Linux , i 'm all for it.I thought it was all hogwash until i tried Ken Colivas ' BFS patch [ kolivas.org ] .
The difference it makes on a desktop system is notable , and it clearly demonstrates that having a single scheduling solution for a kernel oriented for everything from embedded systems to desktops to 4096-CPUs servers is insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upshot is that this is huge for Linux in certain business areas (and other RT OSes are currently quite pricey), but totally useless for your desktop or home server.I don't think so.
If this means we'll get a pluggable scheduler architecture in Linux, i'm all for it.I thought it was all hogwash until i tried Ken Colivas' BFS patch [kolivas.org].
The difference it makes on a desktop system is notable, and it clearly demonstrates that having a single scheduling solution for a kernel oriented for everything from embedded systems to desktops to 4096-CPUs servers is insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809611</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a unique scheduler?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256058660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Has a deadline based scheduler been done before? It seems like an excellent idea for time sensitive (real time) processing. I have worked with RT os's before, iRMX mostly, and always wondered how the scheduling worked.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>The approach in Linux has been to launch a thin RT kernel, and then have it scedule linux.  Or, at least that was the approach a big RT vendor has been selling.  It seemed to work nicely from the demos I've seen, and had nice instrumentation, since people who care about RT need to measure it.  Like Xen will eventually give way to KVM (or something like it), Linux will eventually be good at RT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has a deadline based scheduler been done before ?
It seems like an excellent idea for time sensitive ( real time ) processing .
I have worked with RT os 's before , iRMX mostly , and always wondered how the scheduling worked .
The approach in Linux has been to launch a thin RT kernel , and then have it scedule linux .
Or , at least that was the approach a big RT vendor has been selling .
It seemed to work nicely from the demos I 've seen , and had nice instrumentation , since people who care about RT need to measure it .
Like Xen will eventually give way to KVM ( or something like it ) , Linux will eventually be good at RT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Has a deadline based scheduler been done before?
It seems like an excellent idea for time sensitive (real time) processing.
I have worked with RT os's before, iRMX mostly, and always wondered how the scheduling worked.
The approach in Linux has been to launch a thin RT kernel, and then have it scedule linux.
Or, at least that was the approach a big RT vendor has been selling.
It seemed to work nicely from the demos I've seen, and had nice instrumentation, since people who care about RT need to measure it.
Like Xen will eventually give way to KVM (or something like it), Linux will eventually be good at RT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808019</id>
	<title>Re:We already have one.</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.  But that's an IO scheduler, whereas the code mentioned in the article is a realtime CPU scheduling class.  Probably would have been good if the article summary had mentioned this explicitly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
But that 's an IO scheduler , whereas the code mentioned in the article is a realtime CPU scheduling class .
Probably would have been good if the article summary had mentioned this explicitly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
But that's an IO scheduler, whereas the code mentioned in the article is a realtime CPU scheduling class.
Probably would have been good if the article summary had mentioned this explicitly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807155</id>
	<title>How does this compare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256050020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to *BSD's "dead scheduling"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to * BSD 's " dead scheduling " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to *BSD's "dead scheduling"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806829</id>
	<title>first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>because i'm using Earliest Deadline First scheduling!</htmltext>
<tokenext>because i 'm using Earliest Deadline First scheduling !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because i'm using Earliest Deadline First scheduling!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807679</id>
	<title>We already have one.</title>
	<author>Shadow-isoHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1256052180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's already a Deadline scheduler in the kernel, which works great under database loads. It can be selected with:<blockquote><div><p>CONFIG\_IOSCHED\_DEADLINE=y<br>
CONFIG\_DEFAULT\_DEADLINE=y</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already a Deadline scheduler in the kernel , which works great under database loads .
It can be selected with : CONFIG \ _IOSCHED \ _DEADLINE = y CONFIG \ _DEFAULT \ _DEADLINE = y</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already a Deadline scheduler in the kernel, which works great under database loads.
It can be selected with:CONFIG\_IOSCHED\_DEADLINE=y
CONFIG\_DEFAULT\_DEADLINE=y

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812835</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>HungWeiLo</author>
	<datestamp>1256069880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I welcome anything that spices up competition between vxWorks, LynxOS, Green Hills, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I welcome anything that spices up competition between vxWorks , LynxOS , Green Hills , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I welcome anything that spices up competition between vxWorks, LynxOS, Green Hills, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812601</id>
	<title>Re:It can only do a subset of real-time</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1256068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In many real-time scenarios you have to comply with a timing "window" where being early is just as bad as being late.</p></div></blockquote><p>But just like in real life, if you arrive early, you can wait. If you arrive late, you can't make up the time. If precise timing is required, a program might set its deadline a little early, then busy-wait on a high-precision clock for the exact moment it needs to act.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many real-time scenarios you have to comply with a timing " window " where being early is just as bad as being late.But just like in real life , if you arrive early , you can wait .
If you arrive late , you ca n't make up the time .
If precise timing is required , a program might set its deadline a little early , then busy-wait on a high-precision clock for the exact moment it needs to act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many real-time scenarios you have to comply with a timing "window" where being early is just as bad as being late.But just like in real life, if you arrive early, you can wait.
If you arrive late, you can't make up the time.
If precise timing is required, a program might set its deadline a little early, then busy-wait on a high-precision clock for the exact moment it needs to act.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999</id>
	<title>What's the difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be into the Linux kernel a couple of years ago but since then I haven't really followed it anymore. What's the difference between these scheduling algorithms and do they work better than the current scheduling system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be into the Linux kernel a couple of years ago but since then I have n't really followed it anymore .
What 's the difference between these scheduling algorithms and do they work better than the current scheduling system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be into the Linux kernel a couple of years ago but since then I haven't really followed it anymore.
What's the difference between these scheduling algorithms and do they work better than the current scheduling system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808909</id>
	<title>Re:What I'm not clear about</title>
	<author>randomsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1256056560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EDF schedulers are usually employed in real-time systems, and those are predominantly embedded systems.  They are simple to understand and analyse, such that engineers can have high confidence that all hard real-time tasks will meet their deadlines.</p><p>Generally speaking, it is not useful for much else - you wouldn't want it in a desktop PC, for example.  This is because the priority of a task is determined by its deadline in EDF and not other important factors such as the actions of a user.  We like responsiveness in our desktops, and EDF is not sophisticated enough to provide it.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest\_deadline\_first\_scheduling" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest\_deadline\_first\_scheduling</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EDF schedulers are usually employed in real-time systems , and those are predominantly embedded systems .
They are simple to understand and analyse , such that engineers can have high confidence that all hard real-time tasks will meet their deadlines.Generally speaking , it is not useful for much else - you would n't want it in a desktop PC , for example .
This is because the priority of a task is determined by its deadline in EDF and not other important factors such as the actions of a user .
We like responsiveness in our desktops , and EDF is not sophisticated enough to provide it.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest \ _deadline \ _first \ _scheduling [ wikipedia.org ] RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EDF schedulers are usually employed in real-time systems, and those are predominantly embedded systems.
They are simple to understand and analyse, such that engineers can have high confidence that all hard real-time tasks will meet their deadlines.Generally speaking, it is not useful for much else - you wouldn't want it in a desktop PC, for example.
This is because the priority of a task is determined by its deadline in EDF and not other important factors such as the actions of a user.
We like responsiveness in our desktops, and EDF is not sophisticated enough to provide it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest\_deadline\_first\_scheduling [wikipedia.org]RS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807177</id>
	<title>Re:What's the difference?</title>
	<author>conspirator57</author>
	<datestamp>1256050140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes it performs better.  for certain workloads.  with correct usage.</p><p>like anything else it's a tradeoff.  in this case you (or your application developer) have to be aware of how the scheduler works and be able to assign valid relative priorities and deadlines.  Current schedulers you might have to worry about priority, but usually you don't.  You also have to work out a way to work out utilization and negotiate fallback compute requirements based on the user's workload (other apps competing for the resource).</p><p>Shortly, this scheduler is immediately useful for people making appliances (special purpose computers, e.g. a network firewall/router/voip box).  It is less immediately useful for the desktop user, but i could imagine a set of circumstances that would make it very useful.  The reason is that the appliance designer knows the compute workload fairly well and can take the time to assign priorities and deadlines for each process under each condition.  When tools are made to automate this process on the fly, then desktop users will be able to open a bunch of crap and never have to worry that their voip app is going to stutter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes it performs better .
for certain workloads .
with correct usage.like anything else it 's a tradeoff .
in this case you ( or your application developer ) have to be aware of how the scheduler works and be able to assign valid relative priorities and deadlines .
Current schedulers you might have to worry about priority , but usually you do n't .
You also have to work out a way to work out utilization and negotiate fallback compute requirements based on the user 's workload ( other apps competing for the resource ) .Shortly , this scheduler is immediately useful for people making appliances ( special purpose computers , e.g .
a network firewall/router/voip box ) .
It is less immediately useful for the desktop user , but i could imagine a set of circumstances that would make it very useful .
The reason is that the appliance designer knows the compute workload fairly well and can take the time to assign priorities and deadlines for each process under each condition .
When tools are made to automate this process on the fly , then desktop users will be able to open a bunch of crap and never have to worry that their voip app is going to stutter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes it performs better.
for certain workloads.
with correct usage.like anything else it's a tradeoff.
in this case you (or your application developer) have to be aware of how the scheduler works and be able to assign valid relative priorities and deadlines.
Current schedulers you might have to worry about priority, but usually you don't.
You also have to work out a way to work out utilization and negotiate fallback compute requirements based on the user's workload (other apps competing for the resource).Shortly, this scheduler is immediately useful for people making appliances (special purpose computers, e.g.
a network firewall/router/voip box).
It is less immediately useful for the desktop user, but i could imagine a set of circumstances that would make it very useful.
The reason is that the appliance designer knows the compute workload fairly well and can take the time to assign priorities and deadlines for each process under each condition.
When tools are made to automate this process on the fly, then desktop users will be able to open a bunch of crap and never have to worry that their voip app is going to stutter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809763</id>
	<title>It can only do a subset of real-time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that real-time issues aren't necessarily limited to a "get there before it's too late" scenario. In many real-time scenarios you have to comply with a timing "window" where being early is just as bad as being late. Imagine how bad music would sound if the time between notes were merely guaranteed to not exceed a certain maximum.</p><p>In any case, PC's are a bad platform for software-based real-time unless you can turn off things like caches that introduce unpredictable delays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that real-time issues are n't necessarily limited to a " get there before it 's too late " scenario .
In many real-time scenarios you have to comply with a timing " window " where being early is just as bad as being late .
Imagine how bad music would sound if the time between notes were merely guaranteed to not exceed a certain maximum.In any case , PC 's are a bad platform for software-based real-time unless you can turn off things like caches that introduce unpredictable delays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that real-time issues aren't necessarily limited to a "get there before it's too late" scenario.
In many real-time scenarios you have to comply with a timing "window" where being early is just as bad as being late.
Imagine how bad music would sound if the time between notes were merely guaranteed to not exceed a certain maximum.In any case, PC's are a bad platform for software-based real-time unless you can turn off things like caches that introduce unpredictable delays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29821611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29820783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29811599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29820545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29817715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_137241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29820783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29821611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29817715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29809763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29812601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29811599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29810093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29806829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29820545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_137241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29807141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_137241.29808651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
