In my opinion there is no reason not to use PSCHED_CPU except those around APM and architecture. If you don't want to use APM and do have Athlon use PSCHED_CPU. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raptor" <raptor@tvskat.net> To: "Vladimír Trebický" <druid@mail.cz> Cc: <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [tcng] PSCHED_CPU ? > Vladimír Trebický <druid@mail.cz> wrote: > |The problem with PSCHED_CPU is that the time is derived by reading of TSC > |registry which is measure counter of the processor. TSC exists on Intel > |platform from the times of Pentium but sometimes cannot be used as a > |counter, for example with APM (advanced power management) turned on. > > ]- that's good then 'cause I didn't compiled power-management into the kernel :") > Do u know any other reason not to use PSCHED_CPU ? > > In the past I have setup "HZ = 1000" when building QoS is it wise to do it if the only purpose of this computer is QoS+Firewall and of course it is powerfull enought 1.8GHz. > And I don't expect it to exceed 1000 slow-qos-channels and handle not more than 1Mb/s most of the time. > > raptor > PS.Sorry for the ignorance what is TSC-regitry and its use ? thanx.. > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
