Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:05:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org> To: Matthew Emmerton <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why is this box so slow? Message-ID: <20020830220253.N29127-100000@voo.doo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0208301436140.69211-100000@xena.gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, at 14:42 [=GMT-0400], Matthew Emmerton wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > >> (08.30.2002 @ 1157 PST): Marc Schneiders said, in 2.2K: << > > > I did, and the load is low. There is more than enough RAM, swap isn't > > > ever used. See top output below, with a remark: If I do not run > > > dnetc, it doesn't get better. > > > > > > last pid: 28885; load averages: 1.02, 1.08, 1.02 up 39+03:29:08 20:56:06 > > > 26 processes: 2 running, 24 sleeping > > > > that's a low load? i'd hate to see your system under a heavy load. > > > > i find it hard to believe that not running dnetc wouldn't improve speed. > > dnetc is very CPU intensive, and will slow down a system. > > While that's true, I've found dnetc to be very un-intrusive. I run it all > the time on my machines (dual P166's - yes, that's Pentium One) and I > never have performance problems - it just adjusts it's priority when I > come in to actually use the machine. That is my experience too, running it on two dual Pentium Pro machines. > One thing though - are you sure you've got dnetc configured to > run at the lowest priority (at-idle), so that it will give up the > CPU when it is needed for something else (thttpd, vi, etc)? Yes. And in any case, my problem does not diminish when I don't run dnetc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020830220253.N29127-100000>