Re: Constraining CPU usage
- From: Arne Woerner <arne_woerner@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 05:35:33 -0800 (PST)
--- Shane Ambler <Shane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/12/2005 3:14, "Arne Woerner"
> <arne_woerner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Why should somebody want to keep CPU usage of a
> > process below a certain value (e. g. 20%)?
>
> Well if your machine isn't smp enabled (specifically
> pre-HTT) then one process can slow the server down
> to a point where your web/databse server can't get
> processor time to give a response - effectively making
> it non existent for the duration.
>
Hmm...
Isn't that problem solved already by nice'ing a process?
I think that problem is completely solved by idprio'ing a
process...
Because:
When the NIC gets a packet for a database server, the kernel
interrupts the executing of a potential idprio'ed process and
starts the DB process... Or am I wrong?
-Arne
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Constraining CPU usage
- From: Nash Nipples
- Re: Constraining CPU usage
- References:
- Re: Constraining CPU usage
- From: Shane Ambler
- Re: Constraining CPU usage
- Prev by Date: Re: Constraining CPU usage
- Next by Date: Re: Constraining CPU usage
- Previous by thread: Re: Constraining CPU usage
- Next by thread: Re: Constraining CPU usage
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|