From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 3 15:18:39 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB04C16A41F for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:18:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trashy_bumper@yahoo.com) Received: from web36309.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web36309.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.84.239]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AE8C43D5E for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:18:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trashy_bumper@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 57916 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Dec 2005 15:18:37 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=o5sap3fLd9vTJ/FvRgPpF1ogV8I6JJ03+BUoH6uZzng+ac5cMcovGPjz6Li7zGvzqzP69DtFJtpoB1sYFxZ52IL0omlwpxVFUbulNPVGXPCxFPU6oj1J2PWnII0DXv8jklZbB2B1FmGuuo7kNljZ6HvwcjjSdQa5awyITIaOam4= ; Message-ID: <20051203151837.57912.qmail@web36309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [213.227.200.79] by web36309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:18:37 PST Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:18:37 -0800 (PST) From: Nash Nipples To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20051203133533.92331.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Constraining CPU usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:18:40 -0000 Arne Woerner wrote: --- Shane Ambler wrote: > On 3/12/2005 3:14, "Arne Woerner" > wrote: > > Why should somebody want to keep CPU usage of a > > process below a certain value (e. g. 20%)? > > Well if your machine isn't smp enabled (specifically > pre-HTT) then one process can slow the server down > to a point where your web/databse server can't get > processor time to give a response - effectively making > it non existent for the duration. > Hmm... Isn't that problem solved already by nice'ing a process? I think that problem is completely solved by idprio'ing a process... Because: When the NIC gets a packet for a database server, the kernel interrupts the executing of a potential idprio'ed process and starts the DB process... Or am I wrong? -Arne Looks pretty simple and clear. Thank you Arne. In respect to what Mike said i must admit: "its all about high utilization numbers fear" If the machine was smp enabled i think the number would be around 50% or so.. thank you Shane. Reasoning the topic i believe i should do a little research on: Understanding units and measurements used in FreeBSD performance representation. Calculating a machine's available resources and estimating its possible low/average/peak load when performing user/system tasks during a specific amount of time (24 hours). E.g: 1 user will read $File of $Size Mb from $Storage_media using $Transfer_media. The operation will last $time and consume $CPU CPU time, $Storage_media_capacity $Transfer_media_bandwith, $RAM, $Other shared resources. So eventually, one can build an operations chart/table, estimate timings and balance a target machine's load among the processes that are a subject to order/priority. Gather and analyze collected in a real-time situation statistics. I'm planning to google that for a while. Thank you everyone once again. nash --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less