Jim Perrin <jperrin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
> The change is immediate, however some processes may need to be restarted.
>
>> For example, 'virtual-host' is a good choice during the day when the server
>> is being used while 'balanced' --- or even 'powersave' --- could be used at
>> night when the server is idle.
>> > I made entries in the crontab for this to change the profile at the
>> appropriate times. But is that a good idea?
>
>
> Not really. Ultimately this is what the scheduler itself is meant to be
> doing. What you've described is what the 'balanced' profile actually does.
>
> For server users, I'd say it's a set it and forget it thing.
Hmm, after looking into it a bit, I think that´s probably the idea.
Alas, it doesn´t work that way *unless* the admin does look into it and
creates a profile suited to each particluar machine.
Like I´m basically ok with the 'throughput-performance' and
'virtual-host' profiles except for using the performance governor. That
only makes sense, if at all, during the day when the servers are being
used and no sense at all during the nights when they are idle. So I
need to make my own profiles which use the conservative governor.
But: I´m not sufficiently familiar with all the available tuning
options to really make good decisions. The 'throughput-performance'
profile uses:
[cpu]
governor=performance
energy_perf_bias=performance
min_perf_pct=100
Does it even make sense to just change the governor to conservative, or
does that conflict with other settings? I don´t know what the other two
mean, and I think it would be stupid to run all CPUs at full throttle
all the time. These servers idle a lot and can´t be fast enough when
they are supposed to do something.
BTW, what is the dynamic adjustment of tuned supposed to do? Why is
tuned enabled as a daemon that does nothing because dynamic tuning is
disabled?
> [...]
--
"Didn't work" is an error.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
