From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 15:48:32 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0F316A47E for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:48:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5D643D5F for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:48:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from epia2.farid-hajji.net (epia-2 [192.168.254.11]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB9CDD36A; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:48:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:52:45 +0100 From: cpghost To: Markus Trippelsdorf Message-ID: <20051125155245.GA2844@epia2.farid-hajji.net> References: <20051124013438.T8326@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051124204359.GD30073@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051125064503.GA707@bsd.trippelsdorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051125064503.GA707@bsd.trippelsdorf.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: so much clock interrupts?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:48:32 -0000 On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:45:03AM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > Yes, I guess it increases performance on a high throughput webserver or > router that uses polling. > But on the Desktop it only increases the overhead without any benefits > at all. 2000 interrupts per second per core for the timer is a > ridiculous high number and I reduce it simply for aesthetic reasons. I'm also wondering wether 1000 Hz on a Soekris net4801 (Geode 266 MHz) won't be overkill. I'm planning to migrate some of them from 5.4 to 6.0, and doubting wether to change the new default to its more conservative previous setting of 100 Hz. > This may be a religious issue and everyone should use what he or she > seems fitting. On slow CPUs, it may not be merely a religious issue. :) > Markus -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/