Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:44:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob <spamrefuse@yahoo.com> To: Subhro <subhro.kar@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: xl(4) & polling Message-ID: <20050511054441.69092.qmail@web54008.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <42819770.9070007@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Subhro <subhro.kar@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/11/2005 10:40, Rob wrote: > > >--- Subhro <subhro.kar@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>On 5/11/2005 8:04, Rob wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>All computers are running 5-Stable, as of May 10. > >>>All, but PC1 with fxp, use polling, with: > >>> options DEVICE_POLLING > >>> options HZ=1000 > >>> > >>> > >>1000 IMHO seems a bit too heavy. Try something > >>lower. > >> > >> > > > >What is heavy and what is not? > >Does 100 sound better? > > > >How can I develop a feeling for the 'heaviness' of > >this HZ number? Is it related to the CPU speed? > > > >Thanks for clarifying! > > > >Rob. > > > > > > > Before I answer this question, I would like to > clarify a few things. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I now got a much better idea of what polling actually means. Great! > When I have to put up a new FreeBSD box, I start > from 100 and start beefing up the number until I > find a good balance. Hmmm, how do you "find a good balance" ? Network access speed vs. lost connections.....? --- I'm now trying a kernel with HZ=100 and will report the result shortly. Interestingly: HZ=1000 is apparently a problem with the xl devices (3Com 3c905B-TX), but not with the rl devices (RealTek 8139). What could cause that difference? Could a difference in buffer size on the LAN card cause this? Rob. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050511054441.69092.qmail>