On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 04:12:19PM -0500, Jeff Victor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Lawrence
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:22:25PM -0500, Jeff Victor wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Gael wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Victor
> >> > wr
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:22:25PM -0500, Jeff Victor wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Gael wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Victor
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Some questions:
>> >> 1. Do you use "set pool=" anymore,
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:22:25PM -0500, Jeff Victor wrote:
> Thanks for the great feedback Gael. Comments below.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Gael wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Victor wrote:
> >>
> >> Some questions:
> >> 1. Do you use "set pool=" anymore, now tha
Thanks for the great feedback Gael. Comments below.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Gael wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Victor wrote:
>>
>> Some questions:
>> 1. Do you use "set pool=" anymore, now that the dedicated-cpu feature exists?
>
> We got over one hundred physical fram
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Victor wrote:
>
> Some questions:
> 1. Do you use "set pool=" anymore, now that the dedicated-cpu feature
> exists?
>
We got over one hundred physical frames running zones here, covering nearly
all versions of Solaris 10, we are currently sticking to set pool
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Bob Netherton wrote:
>
>> 1. Do you use "set pool=" anymore, now that the dedicated-cpu feature exists?
>
> Until Oracle develops a more rational licensing scheme you should
> expect this feature to be in use. I may have many Oracle instances,
> each in a separate
> 1. Do you use "set pool=" anymore, now that the dedicated-cpu feature exists?
Until Oracle develops a more rational licensing scheme you should
expect this feature to be in use. I may have many Oracle instances,
each in a separate zone, using the same pool. The sampling on this
discussion l
I have received several private comments expressing interest in this
topic, so I'd like to generate more discussion and attempt to focus on
a solution that meets most or all of the needs.
Summary of problem:
-
A zone can be configured so that its processes do not run on the CPUs
in the default
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Gael wrote:
>
> Many thanks to Bob Netherton and Jeff for their quick help on that painful
> issue.
> The solution was to use psrset -f on the heavily used pset.
> It is fully supported and a recommended situation when CPU starvation causes
> interrupts not to be
Many thanks to Bob Netherton and Jeff for their quick help on that painful
issue.
The solution was to use psrset -f on the heavily used pset.
It is fully supported and a recommended situation when CPU starvation causes
interrupts not to be serviced in
time and they get lost. Credit goes to Rick
Hello Gael,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Gael wrote:
> Hello
>
> Got a zone running SAS with cpu capping enabled using a processor set as we
> see a few processes using quite a bit of cpu there too often.
Is that zone assigned to a resource pool, or is it using the
dedicated-cpus feature?
>
Hello
Got a zone running SAS with cpu capping enabled using a processor set as we
see a few processes using quite a bit of cpu there too often.
When the process is running (chewing 100% of its pset), the frame nic
(server is a E2900 with a ce interface) is dropping 20-30 % of its packets
causing
12 matches
Mail list logo
