From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 12 14:49:39 2003 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 3A4E837B401; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cyberonic.com (mail.cyberonic.com [4.17.179.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACAC43FBD; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:49:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (node-40244c0a.sfo.onnet.us.uu.net [64.36.76.10]) by mail.cyberonic.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h5CLgQZM024951; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:42:27 -0400 Received: (from jmg@localhost) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.12.9/8.11.6) id h5CLoBub009182; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:50:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:50:11 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney To: Killing Message-ID: <20030612215011.GG748@funkthat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Killing , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org References: <032501c3310a$b16beca0$7b07000a@int.mediasurface.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <032501c3310a$b16beca0$7b07000a@int.mediasurface.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE i386 X-PGP-Fingerprint: B7 EC EF F8 AE ED A7 31 96 7A 22 B3 D8 56 36 F4 X-Files: The truth is out there X-URL: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/ X-Resume: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/resume.html cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP in 5.1 cant deactivate hyperthreading X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: John-Mark Gurney List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:49:39 -0000 Killing wrote this message on Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 18:47 +0100: > I suppose the hurry is that basic utils that we use day to day like top > and vmstat to monitor machine load cannot be trusted to give accurate > info. Actually, the basic tools ARE correct, there is a cpu sitting idle that the sysadmin disabled. So, if the sysadmin would reenable the cpu, then jobs could be dispatached to it. Would you rather some junior admin go and disable the cpu, and then six months later wondering why the performance is so slow? > Yes 5.X is still new tech and may not run on all machines but on the ones > which it does ( and it runs very well here ) basic tools are required. If > it doesn't run on a machine your under know false impressions, if however > you users complain of performance issues and you look @ top and it says > 50% idle and its really 0% idle its a different matter. That's a good way to remind the admin to turn the cpu back on. Now is there any good reason why you need to keep the cpu disabled? -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."