RE: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-23 Thread Magnus Walldal
> In that case, could I see some vmstat (and/or top) output of > when the kernel is no longer able to keep up, or maybe even > a way I could reproduce these things at the office ? Interactive response is actually pretty OK, the only thing I'm seeing is short (about 1 sec) pauses, they could be

Re: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-23 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Chris Evans wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > I'm really interested in things which make Linux 2.4 break > > performance-wise since I'd like to have them fixed before the > > distributions start shipping 2.4 as default. > > With kernel 2.4.1, I found that

Re: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-23 Thread Chris Evans
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > I'm really interested in things which make Linux 2.4 break > performance-wise since I'd like to have them fixed before the > distributions start shipping 2.4 as default. Hi Rik, With kernel 2.4.1, I found that caching is way too aggressive. I was runn

Re: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I raised the numbers a little bit more. Now with 128MB RAM in the box we can > > handle a maximum of 7000 connections. No more because we start to swap too > > much. > > Really? Well, it is unlikely to have something with net. > Your dumps show tha

Re: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-21 Thread kuznet
Hello! > OK! I actually expected 2.4 to be somewhat selftuning. Defaults for these numbers (X,Y,Z) are very conservative. > Interesting you say that, I looked at the logs and I see over 5000 sockets > used, does'nt look peaceful to me. But you are absolutely right about the > orphans. The erro

RE: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-21 Thread Magnus Walldal
> Hello! > > > of errors a bit but I'm not sure I fully understand the implications of > > doing so. > > Until these numbers do not exceed total amount of RAM, this is exactly > the action required in this case. OK! I actually expected 2.4 to be somewhat selftuning. But if I exceed the amount of

Re: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info

2001-02-20 Thread kuznet
Hello! > of errors a bit but I'm not sure I fully understand the implications of > doing so. Until these numbers do not exceed total amount of RAM, this is exactly the action required in this case. Dumps, which you sent to me, show nothing pathological. Actually, they are made in some period of