[regarding the buffer cache hash size and bad performance on machines
with little memory... (<32MB)]
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > Where is the size defined, and is it easy to modify?
>
> Look in fs/buffer.c:buffer_init()
I experimented some, and increasing the huffer cache
[regarding the buffer cache hash size and bad performance on machines
with little memory... (32MB)]
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Where is the size defined, and is it easy to modify?
Look in fs/buffer.c:buffer_init()
I experimented some, and increasing the huffer cache hash to
On Tuesday 09 January 2001 12:08, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > Where is the size defined, and is it easy to modify?
>
> Look in fs/buffer.c:buffer_init()
>
> > I noticed that /proc/sys/vm/freepages is not writable any more. Is there
> > any reason for this?
>
> I am not sure why.
>
It can
> Where is the size defined, and is it easy to modify?
Look in fs/buffer.c:buffer_init()
> I noticed that /proc/sys/vm/freepages is not writable any more. Is there
> any reason for this?
I am not sure why.
> Hmm... I'm still using samba 2.0.7. I'll try 2.2 to see if it
> helps. What are
On Tuesday 09 January 2001 12:08, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Where is the size defined, and is it easy to modify?
Look in fs/buffer.c:buffer_init()
I noticed that /proc/sys/vm/freepages is not writable any more. Is there
any reason for this?
I am not sure why.
It can probably be made
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> > 1) Why does the hdbench numbers go down for 2.4 (only) when 32 MB is used?
> >I fail to see how that matters, especially for the '-T' test.
>
> When I did some tests long ago, hdparm was hitting the buffer cache hash
> table pretty hard in
> 1) Why does the hdbench numbers go down for 2.4 (only) when 32 MB is used?
>I fail to see how that matters, especially for the '-T' test.
When I did some tests long ago, hdparm was hitting the buffer cache hash
table pretty hard in 2.4 compared to 2.2 because it is now smaller. However
as
1) Why does the hdbench numbers go down for 2.4 (only) when 32 MB is used?
I fail to see how that matters, especially for the '-T' test.
When I did some tests long ago, hdparm was hitting the buffer cache hash
table pretty hard in 2.4 compared to 2.2 because it is now smaller. However
as
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Anton Blanchard wrote:
1) Why does the hdbench numbers go down for 2.4 (only) when 32 MB is used?
I fail to see how that matters, especially for the '-T' test.
When I did some tests long ago, hdparm was hitting the buffer cache hash
table pretty hard in 2.4
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> > 3) The 2.2 kernels outperform the 2.4 kernels for few clients (see
> >especially the "dbench 1" numbers for the PII-128M. Oops!
>
> I noticed that too. Furthermore I noticed that the results of the more
> heavily
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> 3) The 2.2 kernels outperform the 2.4 kernels for few clients (see
>especially the "dbench 1" numbers for the PII-128M. Oops!
I noticed that too. Furthermore I noticed that the results of the more
heavily loaded tests on the whole 2.4.0 series tend to be highly
I have been torturing a couple of boxes and came up with these benchmark
results. I have also enclosed the script used to do the benchmark, and I
am well aware that this is a very specialized benchmark, testing only
limited parts of the kernel, and so on, BUT I am convinced that I'm seeing
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
3) The 2.2 kernels outperform the 2.4 kernels for few clients (see
especially the "dbench 1" numbers for the PII-128M. Oops!
I noticed that too. Furthermore I noticed that the results of the more
heavily loaded tests on the whole 2.4.0 series tend to be highly
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
3) The 2.2 kernels outperform the 2.4 kernels for few clients (see
especially the "dbench 1" numbers for the PII-128M. Oops!
I noticed that too. Furthermore I noticed that the results of the more
heavily loaded
14 matches
Mail list logo
