Sorry to reply to myself ...
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Andrew R. Reiter wrote:
:On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, David Xu wrote:
:
::On Tuesday 13 June 2006 04:32, Kris Kennaway wrote:
::> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
::> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
::> > >I run a n
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, David Xu wrote:
:On Tuesday 13 June 2006 04:32, Kris Kennaway wrote:
:> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
:> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
:> > >I run a number of high-load production systems that do a lot of network
:> > >and filesystem
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 04:32, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> > >I run a number of high-load production systems that do a lot of network
> > >and filesystem activity, all with HZ set to 100. It has
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
>
> >I run a number of high-load production systems that do a lot of network
> >and filesystem activity, all with HZ set to 100. It has also been shown
> >in the past that certain things in t
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
I run a number of high-load production systems that do a lot of network and
filesystem activity, all with HZ set to 100. It has also been shown in the
past that certain things in the network area where not fixed to deal with a
high HZ value, so it's poss
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
This is a design change that is in the process of being reconsidered. I
expect that HZ will not be 1000 in 7.x, but can't tell you whether it will
go back to 100, or some middle ground. There are a number of benefits to a
higher HZ, not least is more
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
first, why is the default for HZ now 1000? It
seems that 900 extra clock
interrupts aren't a performance enhancement.
This is a design change that is in the process
of being recon
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > first, why is the default for HZ now 1000? It
> seems that 900 extra clock
> > interrupts aren't a performance enhancement.
>
> This is a design change that is in the process
> of being reconsidered.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
first, why is the default for HZ now 1000? It seems that 900 extra clock
interrupts aren't a performance enhancement.
This is a design change that is in the process of being reconsidered. I
expect that HZ will not be 1000 in 7.x, but can't tell you whe
I'm just setting up to evaluate 6.1 for a
project, and before I tune I hoped to get some
feedback on why some things are the way they are.
first, why is the default for HZ now 1000? It
seems that 900 extra clock interrupts aren't a
performance enhancement.
Is there a reason that ITR isn't a tuna
10 matches
Mail list logo
