From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 9 17:31:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3074C16A4CE for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:31:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net [208.162.254.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C739343D1D for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:31:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kirk@strauser.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE05DBA7F for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:31:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kanga.honeypot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80754-07 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:31:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from janus.daycos.com (outbound.daycos.com [204.26.70.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531EDB8EF for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:31:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Kirk Strauser To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:31:29 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <014701c465ce$4e6a8a90$037ba8c0@gnome.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <014701c465ce$4e6a8a90$037ba8c0@gnome.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407091231.29346.kirk@strauser.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at honeypot.net Subject: Re: default HZ value in 5.2.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:31:35 -0000 On Friday 2004-07-09 11:03 am, Chris Stenton wrote: > Any reason why the default value for HZ is still set at 100? Would not > 1000 be better for finer granularity? Setting HZ=1000 absolutely destroyed my Alpha's throughput: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-alpha/2003-April/000142.html Yes, that's a non-x86 machine and an older, slower one to boot, but I thought I'd present it as an example of a system that would really suffer from that proposed change. -- Kirk Strauser