[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 has
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
> 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 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
> 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 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 load
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
var
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
someth
8 matches
Mail list logo
