Stan,
sorry for the late response.
lspci gives me this about my Ethernet adapter.
.
04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit
Ethernet Controller (rev 06)
Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company NC360T PCI Express Dual
Port Gigabit Server Adapter
Control: I/O+
Hello,
Mag Gam a écrit :
I was told by an engineer that unloading unnecessary
modules will improve performance in the system. My question(s) are: is
this true?
I see only one reason why unloading unnecessary kernel modules would
improve system performances : it frees some memory which can
Mag Gam put forth on 11/30/2010 5:17 AM:
Stan,
sorry for the late response.
lspci gives me this about my Ethernet adapter.
.
04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit
Ethernet Controller (rev 06)
Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company NC360T PCI Express Dual
On Sat, November 27, 2010 10:36 am, Leandro Minatel wrote:
# echo 'blacklist module_name' /etc/modprobe.d/module_name.conf
Should that be?
# echo 'blacklist module_name' /etc/modprobe.d/module_name.conf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Lu, 29 nov 10, 12:30:49, Alvin Thompson wrote:
On Sat, November 27, 2010 10:36 am, Leandro Minatel wrote:
# echo 'blacklist module_name' /etc/modprobe.d/module_name.conf
Should that be?
# echo 'blacklist module_name' /etc/modprobe.d/module_name.conf
Your way is safer if you don't know
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Alvin Thompson wrote:
On Sat, November 27, 2010 10:36 am, Leandro Minatel wrote:
# echo 'blacklist module_name' /etc/modprobe.d/module_name.conf
Should that be?
# echo 'blacklist module_name' /etc/modprobe.d/module_name.conf
not necessarily, as long as you assume
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:14:45 -0500, Mag Gam wrote:
I am currently working on a ecommerce system for a client. We are using
Debian 5. I was told by an engineer that unloading unnecessary modules
will improve performance in the system. My question(s) are: is this
true? Also, how do I measure
Stan,
thanks for the response.
To my understanding, CONFIG_HZ is a kernel time option. Has that
changed? I can certainly rebuild the kernel. How can I check via /proc
what my HZ is currently set at? Is there a tool to determine this for
me?
Removing tasks from cron has helped! We had some
Erp, pressed 'send' to quickly.
TCP/UDP offloading, to my understanding hardware has to support and
my hardware Intel e1000 doesn't by our engineering team.
i know we can offset the NIC to do IP checksum but it would be great
to bypass the kernel in general.
As a replier stated, RT is a good
Stan writes:
1. Use a kernel with CONFIG_HZ=1000 (or greater)
...
...
5. Use a real-time scheduling policy (man sched_setscheduler).
6. Lock your process in RAM (man mlockall). Not needed if the process
is the only highly-active one on the machine.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Mag Gam put forth on 11/28/2010 7:10 AM:
Stan,
thanks for the response.
To my understanding, CONFIG_HZ is a kernel time option. Has that
changed? I can certainly rebuild the kernel. How can I check via /proc
what my HZ is currently set at? Is there a tool to determine this for
me?
I
Mag Gam put forth on 11/28/2010 7:31 AM:
Erp, pressed 'send' to quickly.
TCP/UDP offloading, to my understanding hardware has to support and
my hardware Intel e1000 doesn't by our engineering team.
i know we can offset the NIC to do IP checksum but it would be great
to bypass the kernel
On Du, 28 nov 10, 18:12:05, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I don't believe you can find this in /proc or /sys. On one of my
servers, grep CONFIG_HZ /boot/config-2.6.34.1 gives the following:
# CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
CONFIG_HZ_250=y
# CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Mag Gam magaw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I am currently working on a ecommerce system for a client. We are
using Debian 5. I was told by an engineer that unloading unnecessary
modules will improve performance in the system. My question(s) are: is
this true
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.comwrote:
Mag Gam put forth on 11/26/2010 11:14 PM:
unloading unnecessary modules
If they are unnecessary modules, the kernel won't load them in the first
place, as the hardware they interface with doesn't exit. If they're
...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
Mag Gam put forth on 11/26/2010 11:14 PM:
unloading unnecessary modules
If they are unnecessary modules, the kernel won't load them in the first
place, as the hardware they interface with doesn't exit. If they're not
loaded, how can you unload them?
I think you need
Mag Gam put forth on 11/27/2010 11:06 AM:
Stan,
Correct. On my severs I too have sound cards and USB. I don't really
need them so I would rather unload them. I suppose I can do a macro
benchmark and state if it helped or not but I would like to know on a
micro level to see if it helped. I
Hello,
I am currently working on a ecommerce system for a client. We are
using Debian 5. I was told by an engineer that unloading unnecessary
modules will improve performance in the system. My question(s) are: is
this true? Also, how do I measure the kernel (or base OS) system
before and after I
Mag Gam put forth on 11/26/2010 11:14 PM:
unloading unnecessary modules
If they are unnecessary modules, the kernel won't load them in the first
place, as the hardware they interface with doesn't exit. If they're not
loaded, how can you unload them?
I think you need to provide us with _your_
19 matches
Mail list logo
