Greg Stark wrote:
>
> William Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Rob Sell wrote:
> >
> > > Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this performance hit
> > > when using HT, I have what should all rights be a pretty fast server, dual
> > > 2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1
William Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rob Sell wrote:
>
> > Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this performance hit
> > when using HT, I have what should all rights be a pretty fast server, dual
> > 2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig of memory. And it is only 50%
Rob Sell wrote:
Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this performance hit
when using HT, I have what should all rights be a pretty fast server, dual
2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig of memory. And it is only 50% as
fast as my old server which was a dual AMD MP 1400's w
We had a problem at work that when a windows box would connect to a samba
share with a lot of files in it, the kswapd was going nuts, even though we
weren't low on memory at all. Updating to the 2.4.18 or so of the later
redhats fixed that issue. It might be related. I think the kflush daemon
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 11:37, Greg Stark wrote:
> My understanding is that the case where HT hurts is precisely your case. When
> you have two real processors with HT the kernel will sometimes schedule two
> jobs on the two virtual processors on the same real processor leaving the two
> virtual proc
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:42:06AM -0600, Rob Sell wrote:
> For the record I am running on SuSE with a pretty much stock kernel. Not to
> sound na?ve, but is turning of HT something done in the bios?
As far as I know, yes.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Greg Stark wrote:
Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Just for an additional viewpoint. I'm finishing up a project based on FreeBSD
and PostgreSQL. The target server is a Dual 2.4G Intel machine. I have tested
the application with hyperthreading enabled and disabled. To all appearances,
ena
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Pg+Linux swap use
Just for an additional viewpoint. I'm finishing up a project based on
FreeBSD
and PostgreSQL. The target server is a Dual 2.4G Intel machine. I have
tested
the application with hyperthreading enabled and disabled. To all
appearances,
ena
Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just for an additional viewpoint. I'm finishing up a project based on FreeBSD
> and PostgreSQL. The target server is a Dual 2.4G Intel machine. I have tested
> the application with hyperthreading enabled and disabled. To all appearances,
> enabling hype
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 8:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Pg+Linux swap use
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0200, alexandre :: aldeia digital wrote:
Scott, Jeff and Shridhar:
1 GB RAM :)
The stock kernels are not the same,
Jeff wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:31:19 -0600
"Rob Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this
performance hit when using HT, I have what should all rights be a
pretty fast server, dual 2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig
of memory. And i
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:31:19 -0600
"Rob Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this
> performance hit when using HT, I have what should all rights be a
> pretty fast server, dual 2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig
> of memory. And it is
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 8:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Pg+Linux swap use
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0200, alexandre :: aldeia digital wrote:
> Scott, Jeff and Shridhar:
>
> 1 GB RAM :)
>
> The
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0200, alexandre :: aldeia digital wrote:
> Scott, Jeff and Shridhar:
>
> 1 GB RAM :)
>
> The stock kernels are not the same, HyperThreading enabled. 80
Some people have reported that things actually slow down with HT
enabled. Have you tried turning it off?
A
Scott, Jeff and Shridhar:
1 GB RAM :)
The stock kernels are not the same, HyperThreading enabled. 80
simultaneous connections. sort_mem = 4096
I will compile my own kernel on this weekend, and I will report
to the list after.
Thank's all
Alexandre
> Also are two kernels exactly same? In my e
Jeff wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:49:08 -0200 (BRST)
"alexandre :: aldeia digital" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both use: Only postgresql on server. Buffers = 8192, effective cache =
10
Well, I'm assuming you meant 1GB of ram, not 1MB :)
Check a ps auxw to see what is running. Perhaps X is ru
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:49:08 -0200 (BRST)
"alexandre :: aldeia digital" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both use: Only postgresql on server. Buffers = 8192, effective cache =
> 10
>
Well, I'm assuming you meant 1GB of ram, not 1MB :)
Check a ps auxw to see what is running. Perhaps X is runnin
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, alexandre :: aldeia digital wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Old: Post 7.3.2, P4 1.8, 1 MB RAM, 2 x IDE SW RAID 1, RedHat 8
> New: Post 7.3.4, Xeon 2.4, 1 MB RAM, 2 x SCSI 15k SW RAID 1, RedHat 9
>
> Both use: Only postgresql on server. Buffers = 8192, effective cache = 10
>
> In old p
Hi,
Old: Post 7.3.2, P4 1.8, 1 MB RAM, 2 x IDE SW RAID 1, RedHat 8
New: Post 7.3.4, Xeon 2.4, 1 MB RAM, 2 x SCSI 15k SW RAID 1, RedHat 9
Both use: Only postgresql on server. Buffers = 8192, effective cache = 10
In old plataform the free and vmstat reports no use of swap.
In new, the swap is
19 matches
Mail list logo
