Written by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/30/08 12:58
In 6.x. the default thread library is quite inefficient although it
can make use of multiple CPUs (again, providing the application is
giving them work to do). For multi-threaded performance you will be
better off switching to the libthr library
On Monday 30 June 2008, cpghost wrote:
You need to run ZEO if you want to make use of multiple CPUs in Zope.
Here's a small HOWTO. It's for gentoo, but easily adaptable to
FreeBSD:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_ZEO/Zope_and_Plone
Good luck optimizing the Beast! ;-)
This is *so* critically
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'll probably be upgrading to 7.0 in the next month or so, given that
this is obviously a thread issue and that that release has much
improved thread code. However, for the time being, the pressing issue
is fixed, and for anyone in my position stuck on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First off, thanks for such a prompt response. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm the webmaster for www.marssociety.org, which is a FreeBSD
6.2-RELEASE box running on a dual-core AMD Opteron setup with 4GB of
RAM. The box is reasonably busy, as it's the sole piece of
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:48:25 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I decided to run vmstat this morning for a little while
after turning off Zope, and during the couple of minutes I had it
going, the number of processes running (as indicated by the leftmost
column of vmstat's output) was
Kris Kennaway wrote:
In 6.x. the default thread library is quite inefficient although it can
make use of multiple CPUs (again, providing the application is giving
them work to do). For multi-threaded performance you will be better off
switching to the libthr library (see libmap.conf(5))
Michel Talon wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
In 6.x. the default thread library is quite inefficient although it can
make use of multiple CPUs (again, providing the application is giving
them work to do). For multi-threaded performance you will be better off
switching to the libthr library (see
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is claimed
that performance suddenly regressed. If so then this cannot be the
underlying cause.
It may be that the load has augmented to the point that contention
Michel Talon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is claimed
that performance suddenly regressed. If so then this cannot be the
underlying cause.
It may be that the load has augmented to the point
In 6.x. the default thread library is quite inefficient although it
can make use of multiple CPUs (again, providing the application is
giving them work to do). For multi-threaded performance you will
be better off switching to the libthr library (see libmap.conf(5))
or updating to 7.0 (where
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's actually been a long, slow, steady degradation of performance as
best I can tell, that's recently just reached proportions that are so
ridiculous that it's gone from this sucks but I can deal to this is
completely unusable. The system has been slow from the
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Michel Talon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is
claimed that performance suddenly regressed. If so then this
cannot be the underlying cause.
It may be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Michel Talon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is
claimed that performance suddenly regressed. If so then this cannot
be the
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Michel Talon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is
claimed that performance suddenly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Michel Talon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is
claimed
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Michel Talon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yep, it could be that -- what
I will, probably as part of upgrading to 7.0 (which I may accelerate, given
this point). I'm just ecstatic at the difference I'm already seeing, and
specifically wanted to make note of it in the archives. Point very much
taken, though. :-)
It's trivial to change to libthr, as pointed out
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm the webmaster for www.marssociety.org, which is a FreeBSD
6.2-RELEASE box running on a dual-core AMD Opteron setup with 4GB of
RAM. The box is reasonably busy, as it's the sole piece of hardware
running web, database, and mail operations for the Mars Society, an
First off, thanks for such a prompt response. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm the webmaster for www.marssociety.org, which is a FreeBSD
6.2-RELEASE box running on a dual-core AMD Opteron setup with 4GB of
RAM. The box is reasonably busy, as it's the sole piece of hardware
running web,
I'm the webmaster for www.marssociety.org, which is a FreeBSD
6.2-RELEASE box running on a dual-core AMD Opteron setup with 4GB of
RAM. The box is reasonably busy, as it's the sole piece of hardware
running web, database, and mail operations for the Mars Society, an
international nonprofit
20 matches
Mail list logo
