Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

[Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com>]

--- Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:

> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I think part of the problem is the continued
> > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> > language terms, means "unexplained delay".
> Its
> > wrong here because for one, its explainable.
> But
> > it also depends on your perspective. The
> > "latency" is increased for kernel tasks,
> while it
> > may be reduced for something that is getting
> the
> > benefit of preempting the kernel. So you
> really
> > can't say "the price of reduced latency is
> lower
> > throughput", because thats simply backwards.
> > You've increased the kernel tasks latency by
> > allowing it to be pre-empted. Reduced latency
> > implies higher efficiency. All you've done
> here
> > is shift the latency from one task to
> another, so
> > there is no reduction overall, in fact there
> is
> > probably a marginal increase due to the
> overhead
> > of pre-emption vs doing nothing.
> 
> If instead of complaining you would provide the
> information
> I've asked for two days ago someone might
> actually be able
> to help you.

Because gaining an understanding of how the
settings work is better than having 30 guys
telling me to tune something that is only going
to make a marginal difference. I didn't ask you
to tell me what was wrong with my setup, only
whether its expected that 2.6 would be less
useful in a UP setup than 2.4, which I think
you've answered. 

D

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com