10 Jul
2012
10 Jul
'12
11:10 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 July 2012 09:45, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
It was disabled to reduce server load, not reduce response times.
Isn't that equivalent? Server load is just an under the hood detail, it's really about response times.
No, it isn't equivalent. It's a virtual machine on a shared server, our high server load was using up far more than our fair share.
Ah. Does sound like a non-ideal scheduler though, if one VM can affect others in such a negative way. -- Olaf