Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:27:42 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: so much clock interrupts?! Message-ID: <438927AE.2010106@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20051125155245.GA2844@epia2.farid-hajji.net> References: <20051124013438.T8326@chylonia.3miasto.net> <slrndoarjo.2d8m.Markus@bsd.trippelsdorf.de> <20051124204359.GD30073@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051125064503.GA707@bsd.trippelsdorf.de> <20051125155245.GA2844@epia2.farid-hajji.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
cpghost wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:45:03AM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> Yes, I guess it increases performance on a high throughput webserver or >> router that uses polling. But on the Desktop it only increases the >> overhead without any benefits at all. 2000 interrupts per second per core >> for the timer is a ridiculous high number and I reduce it simply for >> aesthetic reasons. The default settings try to give a 1-millisecond timing granularity, which seems to work pretty well on Pentium-grade and above hardware. Desktop tasks now include soft realtime work like displaying video clips, and obviously realtime 3D games benefit from it HZ=1000. > I'm also wondering wether 1000 Hz on a Soekris net4801 (Geode 266 MHz) > won't be overkill. I'm planning to migrate some of them from 5.4 to 6.0, > and doubting wether to change the new default to its more conservative > previous setting of 100 Hz. For what it's worth, I have kern.hz="200" in /boot/loader.conf on an EPIA-M6000 running 6.0-STABLE... -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?438927AE.2010106>