Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:01:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:01:52 -0500 Received: from adsl-67-64-81-217.dsl.austtx.swbell.net ([67.64.81.217]:58286 "HELO digitalroadkill.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:01:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Using O(1) scheduler with 600 processes. From: GrandMasterLee To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Austin Gonyou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <310350000.1043367864@titus> References: <1043367029.28748.130.camel@UberGeek> <310350000.1043367864@titus> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Digitalroadkill.net Message-Id: <1043388556.12894.23.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Date: 24 Jan 2003 00:09:27 -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 18:24, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > I've heard some say that O(1) sched can only really help on systems with > > lots and lots of processes. > > > > But my systems run about 600 processes max, but are P4 Xeons with HT, > > and we kick off several hundred processes sometimes. (sleeping to > > running then back) based on things happening in the system. > > > > I am possibly going to forgo putting O(1)sched in production *right now* > > until I've got my patch solid. But I got to thinking, do I need it at > > all on a Oracle VLDB? > > > > I think yes, but I wanted to get some opinions/facts before making that > > choice to go without O(1) sched. > > How many *processors*? Real ones. > > M. > Quad P4 Xeon. Dell 6650 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/