--- Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I would guess renice on sshd/bash be appropriate
> but there are numerous processes of each and if so which
> ones should I renice.
>
Just try it... :-))
You could try
renice -10 $$
after you managed to get root priviliges (that command would give
yo
--- Andrey Smagin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> driver :) ) or call of SB buffer fill. How to diagnose what
> uninterruptable
> process(or in system function) can to lock CPU for so much time
> (1 sound buffer - 4096 bytes 4096/176400=~23ms) ? And, please,
> help me with
> tuning of sound performanc
--- Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On -current and 5.4 you don't have to make partitions if you
> > intend to use the entire disk (and provided you don't want
> > to boot from it). You can simply:
> >
--- Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scenario B, verified read enabled:
> 1. RAID card reads up ALL blocks in the stripe (5 reads).
> 2. RAID card pretends the block requested is on a "degraded"
> drive, and
> calculates it from the other 3 + the XOR stripe.
> 3. RAID card reports the value back
--- Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also you should keep in mind, there could simply be some really
> goofy
> controller option enabled, that forces the RAID5 to behave in a
> "degraded"
> state for reads -- forcing it to read up all the other disks in
> the stripe
> and calculate the XOR aga
--- Eric Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arne Wörner wrote:
> > --- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Arne Wörner wrote:
> >>
> >>>3. The man page geom(4) of R5.3 says "The GEOM framework
>
--- Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uhm, if you are using RAID5 and your requests are not aligned
> and sized after the RAID5 you should *expect* read performance
> to be poor.
>
Wouldn't that affect both (read and write) in the same way?
> If the disk has bad sectors or other hardw
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Arne WXrner wrote:
> > 3. The man page geom(4) of R5.3 says "The GEOM framework
> > provides an infrastructure in which "classes" can per-
> > form transformations on disk I/O requests on their path
> > from the upper kernel
--- Arne Wörner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eric Anderson wrote:
> > I'm seeing similar sequential performance on RELENG_5_3
> > and RELENG_5_4 on dual-Xeons using 3ware controllers so
> > it does n
--- Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Anderson wrote:
> I'm seeing similar sequential performance on RELENG_5_3 and
> RELENG_5_4
> on dual-Xeons using 3ware controllers so it does not seem to be
> a driver issue [...]
>
Why?
I can remember, that some people said some months before,
--- Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only on write this is a read test.
>
Oh. Ok! :-)
But there is a striping-like effect (especially when u use n=8
discs in one RAID-5 and when u do sequential read), so that the
performance could be easily (n-1)*40MB/sec (which would be in your
case 3
--- Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Eric Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Where do I start looking?
> > First, understand that RAID 5 is dependant on fast hardware to
> > performa
> > the XOR operations. A single disk without any RAID can easily
> > outperform a RAID array i
--- Eric Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, understand that RAID 5 is dependant on fast hardware to
> performa
> the XOR operations. A single disk without any RAID can easily
> outperform a RAID array if the RAID array is on a 'slow'
> controller.
> The Highpoint controllers are not e
I would try to transfer from /dev/zero to /dev/null via the
network interface.
It might be interesting,
1. if it is a switched network,
2. if there is a lot of concurrency between the network nodes,
and
3. if there are really a lot of PCI cards fighting for the bus
(btw. when I multiply 33e6, 8 an
14 matches
Mail list logo
