Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264126AbUAEKbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:31:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264132AbUAEKbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:31:23 -0500 Received: from cibs9.sns.it ([192.167.206.29]:28686 "EHLO cibs9.sns.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264126AbUAEKbV (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:31:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:31:19 +0100 (CET) From: venom@sns.it To: Soeren Sonnenburg cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: xterm scrolling speed - scheduling weirdness in 2.6 ?! In-Reply-To: <1073211091.3261.4.camel@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 881 Lines: 29 On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > out of interest, have you tried to see how 2.4.xx compares when compiled > > with HZ set to 1000? > > (or conversely, 2.6 compiled with HZ set to 100) > > assuming you mean changing the HZ value in include/param.h to 1000/100 > yes 2.4 with HZ=1000 is fine and 2.6 with HZ=100 still #%$@$^&!! > mmhhh! depends... On a DB that has to write often big, long data streams HZ=100 on a 2.6.0 kernel allows a better performance instead of HZ=1000 (no kernel preemption). on a DB that has to read often small, short data streams HZ=1000 is better than HZ=100 with a 2.6.0 kernel. Luigi - 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/