On Monday 23 April 2007 00:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > X is still somewhat jerky, even
> > at nice -19. I'm sure it happens when it's waiting in the other array. We
> > should definitely manage to get rid of this if we want to ensure low
> > late
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:27, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
> > all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
> > please?
>
> Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
> cp
On Sunday 22 April 2007 23:07, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
> > Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> > separate issue.
>
> OK.
>
> > Is it possible the
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> separate
> issue.
OK.
> Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
> synchronising and
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
> > Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> > separate issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbe
> Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
> all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
> please?
Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
cpu utilization of 100/50/50 in top most of the time. When the 100
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
> separate
> issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
> synchronising and desynchr
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a separate
issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
synchronising and desynchronising and choosing to sleep and/or run at the
same time? I can remove t
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
> > > staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behavio
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
> > deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
> > machine.
> >
> > Thanks to
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
> deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
> machine.
>
> Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
>
> Also requ
16 matches
Mail list logo
