@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: x86 to z CPU comparison for calculating IFLs needed
On Monday 04 January 2010 16:46, Stewart Thomas J wrote:
/proc/sys/kernel/HZ must be a SLES thing, don't see that on RHEL. Red
Hat folks have ideas on where to find the equivalent?
That would be /proc/sys/kernel
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Agblad Tore tore.agb...@volvo.com wrote:
SLES also have the hz_timer file.
It is zero here as well, SLES10 SP2, z10.
and the HZ contains 100.
Correct. The hz_timer is to enable the tick timer - the 0
setting is the right one, since that gets us the tickless
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:37:50 +0100
Rob van der Heij rvdh...@velocitysoftware.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Agblad Tore tore.agb...@volvo.com wrote:
SLES also have the hz_timer file.
It is zero here as well, SLES10 SP2, z10.
and the HZ contains 100.
Correct. The hz_timer is
initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such
purpose.
From:
Barton Robinson bar...@vm1.velocity-software.com
To:
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Date:
01/04/2010 12:20 PM
Subject:
Re: x86 to z CPU comparison for calculating IFLs needed
I think you are missing several things
Need some assistance on understanding a workload comparison. Here is what we
have:
We run a business workload (Java/WebSphere) for one week on an HP DL585 G5
server four Quad-Core AMD Opteron Processors, model 8389 (2.9GHz) on Red Hat
Enterprise Linux 4 kernel version 2.6.9. This is
I think you are missing several things. (And jiffies are in 10ms
increments, not 1ms increments)
First, have you verified the accuracy of your CPU numbers? Does RHEL4
include the steal timer patch and is it working correctly on both VMWare
and z/VM? Even with current levels of Linux and z/VM,
transactional workload.
Thanks,
Tom Stewart
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Barton
Robinson
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 11:17 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: x86 to z CPU comparison for calculating IFLs needed
I think
On 1/4/2010 at 3:53 PM, Stewart Thomas J stewartthom...@johndeere.com
wrote:
Regarding jiffies, we found this earlier:
http://linux.die.net/man/7/time
On x86 the situation is as follows: on kernels up to and including 2.4.x,
HZ was 100, giving a jiffy value of 0.01 seconds; starting with
comparison for calculating IFLs needed
On 1/4/2010 at 3:53 PM, Stewart Thomas J stewartthom...@johndeere.com
wrote:
Regarding jiffies, we found this earlier:
http://linux.die.net/man/7/time
On x86 the situation is as follows: on kernels up to and including
2.4.x, HZ was 100, giving
[mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Post
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:40 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: x86 to z CPU comparison for calculating IFLs needed
On 1/4/2010 at 3:53 PM, Stewart Thomas Jstewartthom...@johndeere.com wrote:
Regarding jiffies, we found
On Monday 04 January 2010 16:46, Stewart Thomas J wrote:
/proc/sys/kernel/HZ must be a SLES thing, don't see that on RHEL. Red Hat
folks have ideas on where to find the equivalent?
That would be /proc/sys/kernel/hz_timer
- MacK.
-
Edmund R. MacKenty
Software Architect
Rocket Software
comparison for calculating IFLs needed
On Monday 04 January 2010 16:46, Stewart Thomas J wrote:
/proc/sys/kernel/HZ must be a SLES thing, don't see that on RHEL. Red
Hat folks have ideas on where to find the equivalent?
That would be /proc/sys/kernel/hz_timer
- MacK.
-
Edmund R
12 matches
Mail list logo
