From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 14 20:23:43 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 9C6C816A4CF for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:23:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (ms-smtp-04-lbl.southeast.rr.com [24.25.9.103]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044EB43D1D for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:23:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jason@ec.rr.com) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (cpe-065-184-172-100.ec.rr.com [65.184.172.100])i9EKNdCh023316; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <416EE0D6.5050805@ec.rr.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:25:58 -0400 From: jason User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040808) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dick hoogendijk References: <20041014195717.535e39f7.dick@nagual.st> In-Reply-To: <20041014195717.535e39f7.dick@nagual.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HZ=100 ?? vmware 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: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:23:43 -0000 dick hoogendijk wrote: >Okey, I found out I need to increase the HZ=100 default in the kernel >config to a higher number. I also understand it decreases system >response times. > >So, what I need to know is the lowest setup for HZ=??? to be able to run >vmware3 in full screen. I got to get rid of the "rtc: 100 > kern.hz" >prompt. > >Google tells me to increase to HZ=1200 but is this not too high? > > > In man polling a kernel config of HZ=1000 is the default if you want to use polling. I am not sure, but if vmware is using the same HZ setting as polling does then 1200 is not too high. If I understand it right, the HZ setting tells stuff how often to checkin to see if work needs doing. 100hz would be way too low. Every 100hz on say a 2ghz machince would requirer you to spend a lot of time on something every sec(2billion/100 per sec if I am right). Maybe nothing because you are delaying some programs that you want to execute, not pause and wait every 100hz. This would most likely slow everything down, a higher number would make things smoother and faster, but only to a point. Its kind of complicated, but when you find the right spot(somewhere in the middle) everything is good. If you had a 4ghz machince you may want an even larger number. If I am wrong I am sure there will be a followup shortly. Jason