:This effectively happens.
:
:The harvest ring is a limited length, and any overflows are discarded.
:
:M
:--
:Mark Murray
:Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
Are you resending this mail from 5 dats ago or is there a bounce
occuring somewhere on the list?
Currently the queue size do
:Hmm. Sounds doable. I'll play.
:
:> A 1/10 second sleep and a ring limit of 32 still gives you an effective
:> 320 seeds per second. Still overkill, but at least not the massive
:> overkill that its doing now.
:
:Event != seed. I'll juggle numbers and see if I can come up with any
> 1) Reduce the ring size to something reasonable. 1024 is massive
> overkill. 32 would be just fine.
I'll play with this.
> 2) Add a mandatory tsleep in random_kthread() for EACH entry scanned
> from the harvest ring. Something reasonable like 1/10 second (similar
> to wh
:> I think it would be a much better idea to cap the number of interrupts
:> per second the reseeder accepts. e.g. have a sysctl to set the
:> max and default it to something reasonable, like 200. The seeder would
:> thus only run 200 times a second even if A person were gettin
> I think it would be a much better idea to cap the number of interrupts
> per second the reseeder accepts. e.g. have a sysctl to set the
> max and default it to something reasonable, like 200. The seeder would
> thus only run 200 times a second even if A person were getting
>
:> causes 7750 interrupts/sec here (on a Celeron 366 overclocked to
:> 522). The random task takes 100% of the available cpu cycles. This
:> slows down cpu-bound processes by a factor of about 3.5. With a block
:> size of 64k instead of the default of 512, this causes only 300
:> interrupts/se
> Just do something that causes a lot of interrupts that go through the
> random harvester. E.g.:
>
> dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null
>
> causes 7750 interrupts/sec here (on a Celeron 366 overclocked to
> 522). The random task takes 100% of the available cpu cycles. This
> slows down cpu-boun
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Mark Murray wrote:
> > > Apart from a ridiculously low maxusers (you have 10, I recommend 128),
> > > I'm not sure what the problem is.
> >
> > I do not see why it is "ridiculously low". Even GENERIC recommends 32, while
> > this is a small system intended to be used by only
> > Apart from a ridiculously low maxusers (you have 10, I recommend 128),
> > I'm not sure what the problem is.
>
> I do not see why it is "ridiculously low". Even GENERIC recommends 32, while
> this is a small system intended to be used by only one person, so I do not see
> any problem with it.
> Just installed new world, rebuild kernel, ran mergemaster and after
> reboot discovered that the system slowed down 4-5 times. Turning
> harvest_interrupt=NO in /etc/rc.conf solved the problem. The system in
> question is Toshiba Satellite Pro 445 notebook, see dmesg and kernel
> config attached
Just installed new world, rebuild kernel, ran mergemaster and after reboot
discovered that the system slowed down 4-5 times. Turning harvest_interrupt=NO
in /etc/rc.conf solved the problem. The system in question is Toshiba Satellite
Pro 445 notebook, see dmesg and kernel config attached with this
11 matches
Mail list logo
