Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:42:33 +0400 From: "Artem Kuchin" <matrix@itlegion.ru> To: "Craig Boston" <cb@severious.net>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Quation about HZ kernel option Message-ID: <009201c8069d$2f3edc20$0c00a8c0@Artem> References: <02d401c805cb$abf59ec0$0c00a8c0@Artem><200710041232.l94CWd6W056143@lurza.secnetix.de> <20071004143944.GA46491@nowhere>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Craig Boston wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 02:32:39PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: >> In that case, I would recommend not to override the >> default at all (which is 1000). > > ISTM that it would be better to use kern.hz=100 in this case. > > My reasoning is that a web server shouldn't be terribly sensitive to > latency, so it's better to have longer quantums to get more work done > without context switching overhead. If you're not using polling, > you'll be getting interrupts for network traffic anyway. That what i personally thought. However 100 seems to be too rough. I just feel so, no reasoning behind this ;) Maybe 200-300 is better than 100 and better than 1000? I wonder how to build a test case for this to find best settings for web server, so others will not stuggle with this on the future. > With polling on however, a high HZ value makes sense. polling does not make sense in case of webhosting though ;) -- Regards, Artem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?009201c8069d$2f3edc20$0c00a8c0>