From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 16 15:43: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A2937B404 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 6C433AE1FB; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:43:03 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Peter Wemm Cc: Doug White , Omar Thameen , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tuning a CPU bound server Message-ID: <20020516224303.GA20683@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020514211907.W70761-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu> <20020516224023.78ACC380A@overcee.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020516224023.78ACC380A@overcee.wemm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Peter Wemm [020516 15:41] wrote: > > The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still suffers > from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries to shut > down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause transient load average > spikes - this can be a bit alarming but doesn't actually affect things very > much. Is there a paper on avoiding this? I know how Linux does it, but they seem to need to hammer on the scheduler lock quite a bit as a workaround. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message