On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:28:58AM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 at 09:11, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > How about using preemptive patch on a firewall, running tranparent
> > proxy (squid/iptables) and also a little bit of qos/fair queuing stuff
> > (includes XFS on software raid 1)?
> So on a pure server (ie: one that is not used as a console/workstation at the
> same time) I wouldn't use the kernel preemption patch. On everything else, I
> would. :)
Notice that a "pure" server is very much different from a firewall/router. A
firewall with a transparent proxy should be able to switch packets even when
loaded by other processes.
> > Will try it today and send some feedback.
> That'll be great. I'm interested in finding out how it actually performs
> on a "pure server". :)
This is not a pure server 8)
> I wonder: there is a component of preemption that is XFS-centric, and the XFS
> code is already preemptible. Would the XFS developers have authoritative
> information on how the performance of XFS varies with preemption enabled on
> an IO-bound system?
Do you mean XFS code can be preemptible at _kernel_ space?
Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.13)
To kick or not to kick...
-- Somewhere on IRC, inspired by Shakespeare