From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 27 04:56:13 2003 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 130ED16A4B3 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from anon.securenym.net (anon.securenym.net [209.113.101.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB72343FBF for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:56:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dincht@securenym.net) Received: (from root@localhost) by anon.securenym.net (8.11.7/8.11.7) id h9RCq1C22058 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org.filtered; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:52:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200310271252.h9RCq1C22058@anon.securenym.net> X-Securenym: dincht From: "C. Ulrich" To: andi payn In-Reply-To: <1067042620.38004.1429.camel@verdammt.falcotronic.net> References: <20031024214427.22367.qmail@web20709.mail.yahoo.com> <1067042620.38004.1429.camel@verdammt.falcotronic.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: The Peter Jennings Fan Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:51:19 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux port..... 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:56:13 -0000 On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:43, andi payn wrote: > 4. While running a similar set of services, FreeBSD may be using less > background processing time. Or maybe not. I definitely see significantly > lower CPU usage (idling under X, FreeBSD shows about 2-10% CPU, linux > about 15-35%). However, this may just be an artifact of linux's > notoriously bad reporting, or the fact that I'm using the O(1) kernel > and preemptible kernel patches, or maybe something stupid some GNOME > applet is doing because I configured it wrong under linux; who knows.... Check with top to see which processes are using the CPU. For me, 9 times out of 10, it's the X server itself taking up cycles for doing nothing. It won't do it right after a fresh boot, but some program along the way usually triggers the siphoning of the CPU usage. Charles Ulrich -- http://bityard.net