Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

From: kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Date: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 20:02:40 EST

Next message: Mike Oliver: "2.2.17 -- can't power-down on halt?"
Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: test10-pre7 (LINK ordering)"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Next in thread: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andrew Morton writes:
> how many Apache processes are you running? MaxSpareServers?

MinSpareServers 16
MaxSpareServers 20
StartServers 16
MaxClients 64
MaxRequestsPerChild 0

During busy duration, 64 server processes are working if requests are
processed without trouble.
32 client systems are used and 2 request threads are run on each.

> performance of Apache when the file-locking serialisation is
> disabled.

Making apache without locking is now on-going.
# LinuxWorld conference held in Tokyo these two days, may be an
# obstacle.

--
Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Mike Oliver: "2.2.17 -- can't power-down on halt?"
Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: test10-pre7 (LINK ordering)"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Next in thread: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:31 EST