Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:52:45 +0100 From: cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: so much clock interrupts?! Message-ID: <20051125155245.GA2844@epia2.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <20051125064503.GA707@bsd.trippelsdorf.de> References: <20051124013438.T8326@chylonia.3miasto.net> <slrndoarjo.2d8m.Markus@bsd.trippelsdorf.de> <20051124204359.GD30073@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051125064503.GA707@bsd.trippelsdorf.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051125155245.GA2844>