Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 22:05:25 +0200 From: dick hoogendijk <dick@nagual.st> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device_polling Message-ID: <20050403220525.39ac28dd.dick@nagual.st> In-Reply-To: <424F4FAD.7080300@ec.rr.com> References: <20050402173222.53977dd4.dick@nagual.st> <424F4FAD.7080300@ec.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:06:37 -0500 jason henson wrote: > dick hoogendijk wrote: > > >I was building a new kernel today and came across an option I had not > >seen before. I googled some and concluded that "options > >device_polling / options HZ=1000" would be a better way for my > >realtec network cards than the default interupt driven.. > > > >Is this correct?? Would it be better to have this polling in the > >kernel? (fbsd-4.11-stable) > > > > > > > I would say yes. Check man polling for extra info. I build a kernel with devoce_polling and hz=1000 and experimented a bit. Using "netstat -w 1" I see a drop in performance. In/output is about 20% higher if polling is disabled. That was not what I expexted. I really thought polling would be better. I use cheap rl (realtec 8139) cards. So I guess I will have to recompile without polling. For vmware3 I'll leave the HZ=1200 in. Don't understand it though..<sigh> -- dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ Running FreeBSD 4.11 ++ FreeBSD 5.3 + Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050403220525.39ac28dd.dick>