![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > out of interest, have you tried to see how 2.4.xx compares when compiled > > with HZ set to 1000? > > (or conversely, 2.6 compiled with HZ set to 100) > > assuming you mean changing the HZ value in include/param.h to 1000/100 > yes 2.4 with HZ=1000 is fine and 2.6 with HZ=100 still #%$@$^&!! > mmhhh! depends... On a DB that has to write often big, long data streams HZ=100 on a 2.6.0 kernel allows a better performance instead of HZ=1000 (no kernel preemption). on a DB that has to read often small, short data streams HZ=1000 is better than HZ=100 with a 2.6.0 kernel. Luigi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:59 [W:0.252 / U:0.030 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||