Re: HZ=100: not necessarily better?

2006-06-17 Thread Danial Thom
--- You have some valid points, but they get lost in your overly abbrassive tone. Several of us have watched your behaviour on the DFly lists, and I dearly hope that it doesn't overflow to our lists. It would be a shame to loose your insight and input. Scott --- Well I only have a few

Re: HZ=100: not necessarily better?

2006-06-17 Thread Robert Watson
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote: At some point you're going to have to figure out that there's a reason that every time anyone other than you tests FreeBSD it completely pigs out. Sqeezing out some extra bytes in netperf isn't "performance". Performance is everything that a system can

Re: HZ=100: not necessarily better?

2006-06-17 Thread Scott Long
Danial Thom wrote: --- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Scott asked me if I could take a look at the impact of changing HZ for some simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first couple, and got some results that were surprising, so I thought I'd post about them and ask people who

Re: HZ=100: not necessarily better?

2006-06-17 Thread Danial Thom
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scott asked me if I could take a look at the > impact of changing HZ for some > simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first > couple, and got some results > that were surprising, so I thought I'd post > about them and ask people who are > i

HZ=100: not necessarily better?

2006-06-17 Thread Robert Watson
Scott asked me if I could take a look at the impact of changing HZ for some simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first couple, and got some results that were surprising, so I thought I'd post about them and ask people who are interested if they could do some investigation also. The short