Barry Boes wrote:
I could apply such a patch to my servers, but there are two disadvantages :
o who wants to apply kernel patches to mission critical servers? Isn't
that a linux thing (joke!)
Unfortunately it's not. There's a whole raft of patches (with PR's
filed) that are required
Barry Boes wrote:
With the advent of ZFS, Solaris users are devoting 30G or more to
their ARC caches today. If FreeBSD 8 is going to up the KVM size, is
there a reason to not increase the limit to something that will not be
reached in the lifetime of 8? 100GB?
I think Alan Cox recently
Barry Boes wrote:
With the advent of ZFS, Solaris users are devoting 30G or more to
their ARC caches today. If FreeBSD 8 is going to up the KVM size, is
there a reason to not increase the limit to something that will not be
reached in the lifetime of 8? 100GB?
It's easily configurable on
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
will now get you this:
vm.kvm_free: 547729960960
vm.kvm_size: 549755809792
on HEAD. :-)
Holy fat cache Batman!
Any chance it could be made a tunable?
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
will now get you this:
vm.kvm_free: 547729960960
vm.kvm_size: 549755809792
on HEAD. :-)
Holy fat cache Batman!
Any chance it could be made a tunable?
I don't know what the impact might be of changing these constants to
Barry Boes wrote:
I could apply such a patch to my servers, but there are two disadvantages :
o who wants to apply kernel patches to mission critical servers? Isn't
that a linux thing (joke!)
A trivial tweak would let you set both parameters in your kernel
configuration as an option.
I could apply such a patch to my servers, but there are two disadvantages :
o who wants to apply kernel patches to mission critical servers? Isn't
that a linux thing (joke!)
o what about apps like the linuxulator that might not stand for this?
On the tunable option : with today's
7 matches
Mail list logo
