From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 00:30:37 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869F316A54B for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:30:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp19.wxs.nl (smtp19.wxs.nl [195.121.6.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93AE43D2D for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:30:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl) Received: from kruij557.speed.planet.nl (ipd50a97ba.speed.planet.nl [213.10.151.186]) by smtp19.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I67007XCW2Y7A@smtp19.wxs.nl> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:30:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alex.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kruij557.speed.planet.nl (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9R0UYch022357; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:30:34 +0200 Received: (from akruijff@localhost) by alex.lan (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i9R0UX6n022356; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:30:33 +0200 Content-return: prohibited Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:30:33 +0200 From: Alex de Kruijff In-reply-to: <755cb9fc041026135416b35f88@mail.gmail.com> To: Alexandre Vieira Message-id: <20041027003033.GC858@alex.lan> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i References: <755cb9fc041026135416b35f88@mail.gmail.com> X-Authentication-warning: alex.lan: akruijff set sender to freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl using -f cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HT kernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:30:37 -0000 On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:54:45PM +0100, Alexandre Vieira wrote: > Hello, > > I have a machine with an Intel p4 3.2ghz FSB800 w/ 1MB L2 cache and > I wanted to know your opinion about some kernel options that would > boost the performance of this kind of processor. I flirted with a syctl locking option with 5.2 (or 4.x). When one of the logical processes used the calculation processer, the second logical processor where locked. I turned this off. The result was that the two logical processes started fighting with eachother to who was first in using the calculation processer. Causing a decrease in effency and a increase in CPU temp. I don't remeber any other options. I've stiked with GENERIC ather this. -- Alex Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply. WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/