Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> Cc: Matthew Reimer <mreimer@vpop.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC pthreads before 3.2 is released? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9904281438270.18863-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904281407030.8949-100000@guru.phone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Mike Meyer wrote: > I've been meaning to ask about something related to this. > > I've got a box that's doing some light services - apache, PostgreSQL, > Perforce;, running the distributed.net code (and if you're not a > member of team FreeBSD, you should be), and playing workstation. > > Some comments on the PostgreSQL list make me think that adding a > second processor wouldn't be that much of a benefit, as the locking in > the -STABLE branch increases the contention. It doesn't really depend on postgresql at all. If your process mix is cpu intensive, you will get a benefit. If your process mix is kernel/syscall intensive, then you won't get much benefit as only one process can be active in the kernel at a time. Now, are your postgresql processes cpu or kernel intensive? Depends on what you do. > Anyone got advice on this? > > Thanx, > <mike Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9904281438270.18863-100000>