Re: [PERFORM] Logarithmic change (decrease) in performance

2005-10-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:03:03PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote: > 1= keep more of the data set in RAM > 2= increase the size of your HD IO buffers > 3= make your RAID sets wider (more parallel vs sequential IO) > 4= reduce the atomic latency of your RAID sets > (time for Fibre Channel 15Krpm HD's vs

Re: [PERFORM] Logarithmic change (decrease) in performance

2005-09-28 Thread Ron Peacetree
>From: Matthew Nuzum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sep 28, 2005 4:02 PM >Subject: [PERFORM] Logarithmic change (decrease) in performance > Small nit-pick: A "logarithmic decrease" in performance would be a relatively good thing, being better than either a linea

[PERFORM] Logarithmic change (decrease) in performance

2005-09-28 Thread Matthew Nuzum
Something interesting is going on. I wish I could show you the graphs, but I'm sure this will not be a surprise to the seasoned veterans. A particular application server I have has been running for over a year now. I've been logging cpu load since mid-april. It took 8 months or more to fall from