> Since this is a 2nd order allocation, it could also be that you have
> memory but it's fragmented.
Thanks for the info!
> If you aren't using jumbograms you can
> try disabling that.
disabling 2nd order allocation?
and I do use jumbos on that box (it is an NFS server so jumbo frames --
MTU 9000
Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Just got a logwatch daily mail which revealed a problem:
>> [2024412.788680] kswapd1: page allocation failure. order:2, mode:0x20
>> and a lengthy backtrace with head
>>
>> ,
>> | [202441
On another box which has 4 times more RAM or a bit more than twice total
memory, it had twice as high vm.min_free_kbytes
on another node with even more RAM it is 13821..
hm - so what is the algorithm which sets it? percent of available RAM?
For now I am adjusting it on that server to be twice fro
Alan wrote:
Under heavy network or I/O pressure it may not have time to swap to get
the memory. Thus adding swap won't usually help. Adding RAM may do but
its often not the best answer. Arjan's suggestion should sort it, and -
yes typically boxes with very high I/O and network load need more of a
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:10:03 -0500
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you Alan
>
> Ok - I am adding more memory in my purchasing plan ;-) For now I guess
> adding swap space should help, right?
Under heavy network or I/O pressure it may not have time to swap to get
the memory.
Thank you Arjan for advice
I had 5746, made it 8619.
Is that a good practice in general to have that value higher for a
server with lots of I/O including networking? (there is a RAID on that
system and 2 bonded gigabit interfaces) Is there any heuristic to decide
on that value ?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:10 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Thank you Alan
>
> Ok - I am adding more memory in my purchasing plan ;-) For now I guess
> adding swap space should help, right?
actually since this was networking...
you probably should bump the value in
/proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbyt
Thank you Alan
Ok - I am adding more memory in my purchasing plan ;-) For now I guess
adding swap space should help, right?
> > >...<
> Its tell us that the machine got very very tight on memory, far tighter
> than it probably ever should in normal situations. It is harmless of
> itself and if yo
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:43:55 -0500
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Kernel People,
>
> Just got a logwatch daily mail which revealed a problem:
> [2024412.788680] kswapd1: page allocation failure. order:2, mode:0x20
> and a lengthy backtrace with head
>
> ,---
Dear Kernel People,
Just got a logwatch daily mail which revealed a problem:
[2024412.788680] kswapd1: page allocation failure. order:2, mode:0x20
and a lengthy backtrace with head
,
| [2024412.795212] Call Trace:
| [2024412.
10 matches
Mail list logo
