/proc/interrupts still shows only CPU0 is used for NIC interrupt handling, even with RPS enabled. If you want to find out whether RPS is working, you have to look at /proc/softirqs instead (eg. with watch -n1 cat /proc/softirqs):
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
HI: 0 0 0 0
TIMER: 480622794 476948579 460999919 467641124
NET_TX: 25311134 27075847 27513332 27307975 <-----
NET_RX: 1388399338 4191697027 1491556667 627387845 <-----
BLOCK: 4632803 3 315726 29
BLOCK_IOPOLL: 0 0 0 0
TASKLET: 21 4 8 2
SCHED: 154913375 158601463 97907175 200790209
HRTIMER: 1576760 2361409 1330088 1545921
RCU: 421549961 407634645 405460584 415147363
# cat /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000, 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000 # echo f > /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus # cat /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000, 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,0000000fI have added the echo line to /etc/interfaces to set it on each boot ("up ...").
Während die Meinungsmache von Albrecht Müller mich noch ambivalent zurückgelassen hat, es ist einfach teilweise gar zu links und einseitig (Aussage eines mir bekannten Finanzmenschen zum Abschnitt der Rentenversichungspolemik: "Einige Aussagen stimmen aber die Mehrheit ist schlecht recherchiert und aus diesem Grund ist das Geschriebene weniger Wert als das Papier"), gehört Tom Schimmeck's Werk über Medien, Politik und Meinungsmache eindeutig von jedem mündigen Bürger und in jeder Schulklasse gelesen. Tut mir leid, aber ist so. Es gibt einfach noch zu viele Leute die denken, Propaganda hätten wir zusammen mit dem Dritten Reich "überwunden". Dabei ist es nur perfider geworden. Schon bezeichnend, dass nicht einmal Schimmeck und Albrecht Müller gerne das Wort in den Mund nehmen, sondern lieber von "Meinungsmache" sprechen.
David Gelernter .....
"...prophesied the rise of the World Wide Web. He understood the idea half a decade before it happened." (John Markoff)
"...is a treasure in the world of computer science...the most articulate and thoughtful of the great living practitioners" (Jaron Lanier)
"...is one of the pioneers in getting many computers to work together and cooperate on solving a single problem, which is the future of computing." (Danny Hillis)
"...is one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time." (Bill Joy)
(...)
96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. (...) Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them.
(...)
172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed; They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve that needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his needs for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of their opportunity for power.
(...)
