Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:21:13 +0300 From: "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" <almarrie@gmail.com> To: "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: Artem Kuchin <matrix@itlegion.ru>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quation about HZ kernel option Message-ID: <499c70c0710060921l774e2570se1b9ead6482291cc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0710041625190.17632@qbhto.arg> References: <02d401c805cb$abf59ec0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0710041625190.17632@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/5/07, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Artem Kuchin wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > What value of HZ option would you recommend for a hosting (web) server > > with a lot of processes (about 900) and polling off (as decided from > > previous discussion polling is useless in this situation). > > Is this an SMP system? If so you'd probably be well served by testing the > latest 7.0-current (which will soon be a beta for 7.0-release) with the > ULE scheduler. That's likely to have more benefit for you than changing > HZ, although setting it to 100 is probably going to be better than 1000 > for reasons others have already mentioned. > > hth, > > Doug > > -- > > This .signature sanitized for your protection Hello, Thank you for the nice discussion guys, I have server with dual xeon cpus, and C2D I switched kern.hz to 100 instead of 1000. -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?499c70c0710060921l774e2570se1b9ead6482291cc>