I've been running for quite some time a 5.0-CURRENT box with HZ=1000 set to it's kernel configuration. Apart from a faster blinking rate of the syscons cursor, I haven't seen much difference. This is my own personal workstation though, and it's almost never loaded too much :-/
- Giorgos On 2002-01-31 14:22, Storms of Perfection wrote: > I am intrested in this as well. > > > I've seen various postings on the Net where people reported > > network-related and overall performance improvements caused > > by settig HZ kernel option to 1000 (for example), that is, > > reducing a tick size to 1ms for their FreeBSD and Linux > > systems. However, several problems seem to arise, such as > > some device drivers do not include HZ in calculating their > > timeout value, but simply assume HZ to be 100, and also some > > utility programs such as top or ps take timing information > > from the kernel in ticks, also assuming 10ms ticks, however, > > most of these saying were related to Linux. How safe it is > > to bump up HZ to, say, 1000 in FreeBSD (I use 4.5-STABLE)? > > What pitfals will I encounter (drivers, top/ps)? Is there > > are going to be [promised] performance increase? Do I > > really need it? Thank you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
