Gea-Suan Lin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:06:09AM +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
And you should disable these options, it may increase ~10% again:
-cpu I486_CPU
-cpu I586_CPU
cpu I686_CPU
A recent discussion on -STABLE warned against removing I586_CPU,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:06:09AM +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
> > And you should disable these options, it may increase ~10% again:
> >
> > -cpu I486_CPU
> > -cpu I586_CPU
> > cpu I686_CPU
>
> A recent discussion on -STABLE warned against removing I586_CPU, r
So, is ULE ready for production on 6.0-RELEASE?
Can we use it without fear?
Cheers
Gea-Suan Lin wrote:
Hi,
In http://blog.gslin.org/archives/2005/12/12/252/ we test more cases,
and summary some important conclusions:
* SCHED_ULE (kernel options) is faster than SCHED_4BSD.
* Use kern.timecoun
Yes. thanks for correction Jeremie ;)
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi, Gustavo,
In my first post in this thread, there are some numbers for connections
from localhost, but using TCP instead of socket.
For the sake of accuracy, sockets are either TCP or Unix (and maybe
other kinds). Thus you mean
Hi, Gustavo,
> In my first post in this thread, there are some numbers for connections
> from localhost, but using TCP instead of socket.
For the sake of accuracy, sockets are either TCP or Unix (and maybe
other kinds). Thus you meant "..., but using TCP socket instead
of Unix socket".
Regards
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:52:44PM -0500, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> On two occasions recently, vmstat has showed me that a
> number of processes are blocked due to I/O. At the same
> time, the number of disk transactions per second reported is
> a small fraction of the disk's capability.
I di
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:52:44PM -0500, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> On two occasions recently, vmstat has showed me that a
> number of processes are blocked due to I/O. At the same
> time, the number of disk transactions per second reported is
> a small fraction of the disk's capability.
I di
