On 26 Mar 2003, at 14:05, Terry Lambert wrote:
> It's to ensure an allocation of a PV Entry *DOES NOT FAIL*, even
> when you *are* completely starved. That's the whole point: to
> move the KVA space pressure off onto some *other* system that
> *also* does not preallocate its resources, and expect
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Andrew Kinney wrote:
> Eventually, I may be forced to turn off KeepAlive and make use of
If you disable keepalive I believe clients would not see much difference.
Keepalive is a good feature for clients but it should be enabled
if you have enough resources to support it.
It
Andrew Kinney wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2003, at 19:28, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Basically, you don't really care about pv_entry_t's, you care
> > about KVA space, and running out of it.
> >
> > In a previous posting, you suggested increasing KVA_PAGES fixed
> > the problem, but caused a pthreads problem.
On 26 Mar 2003, at 13:29, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> If you have 200M shared memory it takes about 50,000 PV entries per
> process. 20 processes takes 1 million PV entries.
We've got about 11.1 million PV entries to play with, so I went
ahead and made MaxClients 150 just to ensure Apache couldn't
pan
On 25 Mar 2003, at 19:28, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Basically, you don't really care about pv_entry_t's, you care
> about KVA space, and running out of it.
>
> In a previous posting, you suggested increasing KVA_PAGES fixed
> the problem, but caused a pthreads problem.
Will running out of KVA space
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Andrew Kinney wrote:
> I'm going to expose my newbness here with respect to BSD
> memory management, but could the number of files served and
> filesystem caching have something to do with the PV Entry usage
> by Apache? We've got around 1.2 million files served by this
>
Andrew Kinney wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2003, at 17:56, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > > So, what's the best approach to limiting memory shared via fork() or
> > > reducing PV Entry usage by that memory? Is there something I can do
> > > with the kernel config or sysctl to accomplish this?
> >
> > No, as far as
On 25 Mar 2003, at 17:56, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > So, what's the best approach to limiting memory shared via fork() or
> > reducing PV Entry usage by that memory? Is there something I can do
> > with the kernel config or sysctl to accomplish this?
>
> No, as far as I know there's no way to do it.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Andrew Kinney wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2003, at 16:02, Igor Sysoev wrote:
>
> > How many Apache processes do you have and what's their size ?
>
> It varies between 150 and 256 Apache processes. Our MaxClients
> is set to 256, which seems to work well.
>
> Their size varies from
On 24 Mar 2003, at 16:02, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> How many Apache processes do you have and what's their size ?
It varies between 150 and 256 Apache processes. Our MaxClients
is set to 256, which seems to work well.
Their size varies from 240MB to 290MB depending on how long
they've been running
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Andrew Kinney wrote:
> The source of the PV Entry usage is shared memory in Apache
> (PHP and/or mod_perl). We know it's Apache memory sharing
> that causes the problem because nearly all PV Entries are freed
> when Apache is stopped and the problem is worst right after
>
Hello,
(very long message with background information on the issue
follows)
The machine discussed in this email is tracking RELENG_4_7.
The machine is a well loaded web/mail/ftp server with dual Athlon
MP 2000+ CPUs, 4GB of RAM, and 8GB of available swap space.
The most it has ever swapped
12 matches
Mail list logo
