Initial 6.1 questions
kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Jun 12 20:32:50 UTC 2006
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> >I run a number of high-load production systems that do a lot of network
> >and filesystem activity, all with HZ set to 100. It has also been shown
> >in the past that certain things in the network area where not fixed to
> >deal with a high HZ value, so it's possible that it's even more
> >stable/reliable with an HZ value of 100.
> >My personal opinion is that HZ should gop back down to 100 in 7-CURRENT
> >immediately, and only be incremented back up when/if it's proven to be the
> >right thing to do. And, I say that as someone who (errantly) pushed for
> >the increase to 1000 several years ago.
> I think it's probably a good idea to do it sooner rather than later. It
> may slightly negatively impact some services that rely on frequent timers
> to do things like retransmit timing and the like. But I haven't done any
As you know, but for the benefit of the list, restoring HZ=100 is
often an important performance tweak on SMP systems with many CPUs
because of all the sched_lock activity from statclock/hardclock, which
scales with HZ and NCPUS.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/attachments/20060612/ddb2c64e/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-performance