On Wednesday 27 July 2005 13:11, Con Kolivas wrote: > HZ-864.diff > +My take on the never ending config HZ debate. Apart from the number not > being pleasing on the eyes, a HZ value that isn't a multiple of 10 is > perfectly valid. Setting HZ to 864 gives us very similar low latency > performance to a 1000HZ kernel, decreases overhead ever so slightly, and > minimises clock drift substantially. The -server patch uses HZ=82 for > similar reasons, with the emphasis on throughput rather than low latency. > Madness? Probably, but then I can't see any valid argument against using > these values. Some time ago I tried with HZ=209, but the system then freezes after a few minutes... Any ideas what could be the reason? Are only even numbers allowed? -- Christian
Attachment:
pgpyOBmoXak21.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.12-ck4
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12-ck4
- References:
- 2.6.12-ck4
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- 2.6.12-ck4
- Prev by Date: Re: Power consumption HZ250 vs. HZ1000
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/6] mm: micro-optimise rmap
- Previous by thread: 2.6.12-ck4
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.12-ck4
- Index(es):
