Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance

2004-09-26 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
] *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance

2001-02-23 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
with larger -B (for now, -B 256 is the most I can set) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***

Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance

2001-02-18 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
] *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***

Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance

2001-02-18 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: I just done the experiment with increasing HZ to 1000 on my own machine (PII 374). Your test program reports 2 ms instead of 20. The other side of increasing HZ is surely more overhead to scheduler system. Anyway, it's a bit of data to dig into, I

Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance

2001-02-18 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: DM I just done the experiment with increasing HZ to 1000 on my own machine DM (PII 374). Your test program reports 2 ms instead of 20. The other side DM of increasing HZ is surely more overhead to scheduler system. Anyway, it's DM a bit of data