Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But, what do you do with Oracle that's asking maxfiles to be set to 0x1,
while the default value might be enough for a system that's not running Oracle.
I'm afraid that giving boot time values to the max_* tunables we will l
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, what do you do with Oracle that's asking maxfiles to be set to 0x1,
> while the default value might be enough for a system that's not running
> Oracle.
> I'm afraid that giving boot time values to the max_* tunables we will loose
> all
> the be
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, should I understand from this that automatic tuning and the AKT framework
itself would make sense, given that I find the rigth tunables it should be
applied to?
Sort of. The concept of things tuning themselves automatica
ebiederm wrote:
> At a quick glance max_threads and max_files appear even more to be
> DOS limits and not tunables and even less applicable to needing any
> tuning at all. My gut feel is at worst these values may need a little
> better boot time defaults but otherwise they the should be good.
Aut
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, should I understand from this that automatic tuning and the AKT framework
> itself would make sense, given that I find the rigth tunables it should be
> applied to?
Sort of. The concept of things tuning themselves automatically makes
a lot of sense.
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I do not fully agree with you:
It is true that some ipc tunables play the role of DoS limits.
But IMHO the *mni ones (semmni, msgmni, shmmni) are used by the ipc subsystem to
adapt its data structures sizes to what is being aske
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not fully agree with you:
> It is true that some ipc tunables play the role of DoS limits.
> But IMHO the *mni ones (semmni, msgmni, shmmni) are used by the ipc subsystem
> to
> adapt its data structures sizes to what is being asked for through the
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
2) why autotuning:
There are at least 3 cases where it can be useful
. for workloads that are known to need a big amount of a given resource type
(say shared memories), but we don't know what the maximum amount needed will be
.
Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 2) why autotuning:
> There are at least 3 cases where it can be useful
> . for workloads that are known to need a big amount of a given resource type
> (say shared memories), but we don't know what the maximum amount needed will
> be
> . to solve the c
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:15:22 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following kernel components register a tunable structure and call the
auto-tuning routine:
. file system
. shared memory (per namespace)
. semaphore (per namespace)
. message queues (per namespace)
This is
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:15:22 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The following kernel components register a tunable structure and call the
> auto-tuning routine:
> . file system
> . shared memory (per namespace)
> . semaphore (per namespace)
> . message queues (per namespace)
This is the pa
[PATCH 06/06]
The following kernel components register a tunable structure and call the
auto-tuning routine:
. file system
. shared memory (per namespace)
. semaphore (per namespace)
. message queues (per namespace)
Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/file_table.c
12 matches
Mail list logo
