From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan  3 21:08:33 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA10688
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA10678
          for <FreeBSD-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA13376; Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:03:06 +1100
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:03:06 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199601040503.QAA13376@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: FreeBSD-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, witr@rwwa.com
Subject: Re: help: 2.1.0 reboots with high network load
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>> vmstat -i:
>> interrupt      total      rate
>> clk0 irq0      729041      100
>> rtc0 irq8      932875      128

>Incidentally, is this an artifact, or does this really mean
>a load of 228 interrupts/second for timekeeping?  Is this
>a softclk/hardclk thing?

This is standard.  It is a hardclk/statistics clock thing.
It costs cost about 0.3% on my 486DX2/66 according to systat.
The 128 statistics clock interrupts aren't counted properly.
The actual overhead is about 0.5%.

Bruce