On Monday 23 April 2007 00:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > X is still somewhat jerky, even
> > at nice -19. I'm sure it happens when it's waiting in the other array. We
> > should definitely manage to get rid of this if we want to ensure low
> >
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
X is still somewhat jerky, even
at nice -19. I'm sure it happens when it's waiting in the other array. We
should definitely manage to get rid of this if we want to ensure low
latency.
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:27, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
> > all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
> > please?
>
> Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
>
On Sunday 22 April 2007 23:07, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
> > Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> > separate issue.
>
> OK.
>
> > Is it possible
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> separate
> issue.
OK.
> Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
> synchronising and
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
> > Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> > separate issue. Is it possible the multiple
> Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
> all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
> please?
Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
cpu utilization of 100/50/50 in top most of the time. When the
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> separate
> issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
> synchronising and
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a separate
issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
synchronising and desynchronising and choosing to sleep and/or run at the
same time? I can remove
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:02, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> Hi Con,
>
> I now have 2.6.21-rc7-sd-0.45 running on my Intel Core2 T7600 2.33
> machine and there is something I don't understand.
>
> For testing I have a Perl script that does some numbercrunching
> and runs a couple of hours.
>
> I have
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted
Hi Con,
I now have 2.6.21-rc7-sd-0.45 running on my Intel Core2 T7600 2.33
machine and there is something I don't understand.
For testing I have a Perl script that does some numbercrunching
and runs a couple of hours.
I have two scenarios
a) start the job via loops in a shellscript
b) start the
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
> > > staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
> > deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
> > machine.
> >
> > Thanks to
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
> deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
> machine.
>
> Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
>
> Also
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
machine.
Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
Also requested
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
machine.
Thanks to Willy
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour
Hi Con,
I now have 2.6.21-rc7-sd-0.45 running on my Intel Core2 T7600 2.33
machine and there is something I don't understand.
For testing I have a Perl script that does some numbercrunching
and runs a couple of hours.
I have two scenarios
a) start the job via loops in a shellscript
b) start the
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun,
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:02, Michael Gerdau wrote:
Hi Con,
I now have 2.6.21-rc7-sd-0.45 running on my Intel Core2 T7600 2.33
machine and there is something I don't understand.
For testing I have a Perl script that does some numbercrunching
and runs a couple of hours.
I have two
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a separate
issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
synchronising and desynchronising and choosing to sleep and/or run at the
same time? I can remove
Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
please?
Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
cpu utilization of 100/50/50 in top most of the time. When the 100%
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
separate
issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
synchronising and
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
separate
issue.
OK.
Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
synchronising and
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:27, Michael Gerdau wrote:
Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
please?
Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
cpu
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
separate issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench
On Sunday 22 April 2007 23:07, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
separate issue.
OK.
Is it possible the multiple
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
machine.
Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
Also requested was a version in the Makefile so this version of the patch
adds
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
machine.
Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
Also requested was a version in the Makefile so this version of the patch
adds
38 matches
Mail list logo
