From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec  3 13:05:38 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18CC16A41A
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Dec 2007 13:05:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5892013C43E
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Dec 2007 13:05:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IzAzL-00022h-Qv
	for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:05:31 +0000
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:05:31 +0000
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:05:31 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:10:39 +0100
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <fj0uuh$sc5$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20071201213732.GA16638@cannabis.dataforce.net>	<1497741406.20071201230441@rulez.sk>	<20071202174540.GA29572@cannabis.dataforce.net>	<200712020844.49718.linimon@FreeBSD.org>	<4753C9E4.1060200@chistydom.ru>	<4753D157.80208@chistydom.ru>
	<4753D9D7.7060900@mawer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801)
In-Reply-To: <4753D9D7.7060900@mawer.org>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:05:38 -0000

Antony Mawer wrote:

> Have you tried testing with different values for kern.hz? I am by no
> means an expert, but have stumbled across various postings over the past
> few years that suggest the high value (1000) used by modern (5.x+?)
> kernels can be pessimistic for some workloads...
> 
> If you could try testing with some other values by setting in
> /boot/loader.conf, eg:
> 
>     kern.hz="100"

AFAIK this was tried and found irrelevant for this particular load. It
may still help others.