Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:27:00 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some filesystems, including I believe, ext3 with data=ordered, > can leave orphaned pages around after they have been truncated > out of the pagecache. These pages get left on the LRU and vmscan > reclaims them pretty

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Nick Piggin wrote: > Some filesystems, including I believe, ext3 with data=ordered, > can leave orphaned pages around after they have been truncated > out of the pagecache. These pages get left on the LRU and vmscan > reclaims them pretty easily. > > Try ext3 data=writeback, or even ext2.

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

On Thursday 18 October 2007 17:14, Vasily Averin wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> could anybody explain how "inactive" may be much greater than "cached"? > >> stress test

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Nick Piggin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> could anybody explain how "inactive" may be much greater than "cached"? >> stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into >> removed files in cycle puts the node to

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Hi, On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote: > Hi all, > > could anybody explain how "inactive" may be much greater than "cached"? > stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into > removed files in cycle puts the node to the following state: > >

How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Hi all, could anybody explain how "inactive" may be much greater than "cached"? stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into removed files in cycle puts the node to the following state: MemTotal: 16401648 kB MemFree: 636644 kB Buffers: 1122556 kB Cached: 362880 kB

How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Hi all, could anybody explain how inactive may be much greater than cached? stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into removed files in cycle puts the node to the following state: MemTotal: 16401648 kB MemFree: 636644 kB Buffers: 1122556 kB Cached: 362880 kB

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Hi, On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote: Hi all, could anybody explain how inactive may be much greater than cached? stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into removed files in cycle puts the node to the following state: MemTotal: 16401648

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Nick Piggin wrote: Hi, On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote: Hi all, could anybody explain how inactive may be much greater than cached? stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into removed files in cycle puts the node to the following

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

On Thursday 18 October 2007 17:14, Vasily Averin wrote: Nick Piggin wrote: Hi, On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote: Hi all, could anybody explain how inactive may be much greater than cached? stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Nick Piggin wrote: Some filesystems, including I believe, ext3 with data=ordered, can leave orphaned pages around after they have been truncated out of the pagecache. These pages get left on the LRU and vmscan reclaims them pretty easily. Try ext3 data=writeback, or even ext2. thanks,

Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:27:00 +1000 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some filesystems, including I believe, ext3 with data=ordered, can leave orphaned pages around after they have been truncated out of the pagecache. These pages get left on the LRU and vmscan reclaims them pretty easily.