From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 00:09:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 9721516A420 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:09:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net) Received: from chylonia.3miasto.net (chylonia.3miasto.net [213.192.74.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A63F43DB7 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:09:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net) Received: from chylonia.3miasto.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chylonia.3miasto.net (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jAP099uA086818; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:09:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by chylonia.3miasto.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) with ESMTP id jAP099OI086815; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:09:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net) X-Authentication-Warning: chylonia.3miasto.net: wojtek owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:09:08 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar X-X-Sender: wojtek@chylonia.3miasto.net To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20051124195930.GA19106@xor.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: <20051125010852.V86615@chylonia.3miasto.net> References: <20051124013438.T8326@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051124023928.GA13075@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051124140503.A75939@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051124195930.GA19106@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: so much clock interrupts?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:09:49 -0000 >>> No, it's just a consequence of HZ=1000 instead of HZ=100. I've >> >> >> so why 2000 not 1000? >> >> 2000 on each processor! > > Technical reasons..anyway, 2000 might look like a large number to you, > but it's really not unless you're on a very slow machine (like a 486). i'm asking why it's 2000, not 1000.