On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 04:59:19PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 12:30 -0600, Steven Pratt wrote:
> > Also, is it maybe time to increase the default number of locks? We had
> > similar problems on large systems in SLES9 testing and we still have to
> > run SPECSFS with TxLocks set to 65k.
>
> + struct sysinfo si;
> +
> + /* Set defaults for nTxLock and nTxBlock if unset */
> +
> + if (nTxLock == -1) {
> + if (nTxBlock == -1) {
> + /* Base default on memory size */
> + si_meminfo(&si);
> + if (si.totalram > (256 * 1024)) /* 1 GB */
> + nTxLock = 64 * 1024;
> + else
> + nTxLock = si.totalram >> 2;
> + } else if (nTxBlock > (8 * 1024))
> + nTxLock = 64 * 1024;
> + else
> + nTxLock = nTxBlock << 3;
> + }
> + if (nTxBlock == -1)
> + nTxBlock = nTxLock >> 3;
So, to summarize this logic, if you haven't set anything and you have
more than 1GB of ram total, the number of TxLocks is maxed out. If
you haven't set anything and you have 1GB of RAM or less, then you
get something like a quarter of the number of kilobytes of ram worth
of txlocks? If you have exactly 1GB of RAM, then won't that number
be too big? ( 1048576 / 4 == 262144 )
Both the number of txlocks and txblocks are limited to a 16bit number
correct?
Sonny
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
