Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> > Andrew's measured 10% performance increase suggests that we should make
>> > this the default, IMHO, at least on Linux: apparently, our glibc
>> > allocators are better than heartbeats.
>> >
>> > I've been running tests with it and not found any issues.
>> >
>> > I'll probably make this the default on SLES, but think it'd make sense
>> > for upstream as well.
>>
>> Heartbeat on the average on a real running system should take < 1% or
>> less of system resources.
>
> yeah, when its not doing anything.
Which is EXACTLY what it's supposed to do for months or years at a time
- and in fact what it does do for months or years at a time.
The fact that _under test conditions_ it consumes a bit more is a bit
artificial, IMHO.
_Of course_ it consumes more when running CTS. We're doing our level
best to beat the crap out of it. I should _hope_ it consumes more when
running CTS.
What's important is how much difference it makes _in real life_ on real
systems running the code - not how bad you can make it look on test systems.
Anything unlike the real experience of real uses is, as you said,
"fiddling the numbers".
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
