On 07/13/05 01:49, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 7/12/05, Random <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eliminating tuneables is a *silly* thing to do, even if the process of tuning
is 'automatic'. As OS kernels and the systems they control become *far* more
complex, giving the system access to dynamic tuning is a *good* thing to do.
Systems undergo dynamic usage - at one point during the day, network load might
be far more intense than at others, and the process load also fluctuates.
How is it silly? As an admin, I don't want to know or care about
"tunables". The system should be smart enough to Do the Right
Thing(TM), and when it doesn't, it should be considered a bug for most
tunables in my opinion.
[cut]
Yes. We've seen spectacular cases of admins "tuning" and shooting themselves
in the foot. Ultimately it is our (*) fault for making them feel that
tuning is typically needed by default.
When the first system-health monitors were written and released on the
Explorer database some amazing things surfaced, such as large database
servers with maxusers set to 10 since actual unix logins were never
more than a couple of users! maxusers was used in the calculation of
just about everything, so the whole system was constrained.
Gavin
(*) "Our" as in the greater unix and unix-like OS community. Solaris has
eliminated much of the traditional need for tuning, but in releases like
2.3 and with the Cockcroft book telling all there came a tradition of
"you need to tune it".
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
https://opensolaris.org:444/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
