Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:18:23 +0200
From:      Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org>
To:        Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: 5.4-prerelease - hanging under load
Message-ID:  <20050403211823.GS87756@unixpages.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050403170216.GA680@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
References:  <424F5210.8060809@pldrouin.net> <20050403133200.GP87756@unixpages.org> <425014B2.9070208@pldrouin.net> <200504031834.54592@harrymail> <20050403170216.GA680@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--V4yrq4dHtCqH+JvC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:02:16PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Emanuel Strobl wrote:
>=20
> >Huh? I thought by default it is "HIGH", but it would also explain the=20
> >experiences in the thread "cpufreq related RELENG_5 regression"=20
> >(http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=3D389949+393881+/usr/local/=
www/db/text/2005/freebsd-stable/20050327.freebsd-stable)
>=20
> But does that also affect desktop machines?  I'm not under the
> impression that my CPU is running at a lower frequency.  The issue
> I mentioned only seems to occur when doing larger block reads/writes
> from/to disk (SATA), like untarring firefox.  I didn't notice it
> so far when some kind of mixed disk access is going on, like with
> find, compiling, etc.  Maybe that points to some locking issues in
> the VM corner?  I mean, it's not dramatic, but still makes the
> system appear a bit unpolished, when it happens.  In the past, with
> pre-5.x releases, FreeBSD has been scheduling disk i/o and interactive
> work smoothly, in my experience, so one didn't quite notice when
> heavy disk access was going on, at least not if your interactive
> programs weren't doing much disk i/o themselves.
>=20

Not sure about desktop machines, probably depends on what exactly you're
doing.  At least it affects real-world scenarios, see my original message
to this list:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-March/013036.html

- Christian

--=20
Christian Brueffer	chris@unixpages.org	brueffer@FreeBSD.org
GPG Key:	 http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc
GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B  B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D

--V4yrq4dHtCqH+JvC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFCUF2fbHYXjKDtmC0RAkcxAJ0bntojTno+O2vevD5IS3eXMJw0VQCg12eE
XyOos+D4XRmnt6+eiP5YFuw=
=4HxF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--V4yrq4dHtCqH+JvC--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050403211823.GS87756>