From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 1 12:29:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA27668 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nora.pcug.co.uk (Nora.PCUG.CO.UK [192.68.174.71]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA27663 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:29:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from imdb.demon.co.uk by nora.pcug.co.uk id aa29089; 1 Apr 97 21:29 BST Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:29:36 +0100 (BST) From: Rob Hartill X-Sender: robh@localhost To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: 2.2 using more memory than 2.17 ? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Looking at "top" on some of my servers, the ones I've moved to 2.2 are using far more memory than those still on 2.1.7 Is this to be expected ? e.g. on identical P6s the 2.2 box has "60-70mb" active and the 2.1.7 box has "30-40mb". Two P5s running 2.1.7/2.2 show the same type of difference. I'm running an Apache binary with mod_perl that was compiled on a 2.1.7 system. Would the old binary/libs make a difference w.r.t memory usage ? There's little else running on the machines. I'll recompile my httpd when I've finished upgrading all the machines. -- Rob Hartill Internet Movie Database (Ltd) http://us.imdb.com/tour - bring a packed lunch.. it's big! From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 1 14:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA06906 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA06871 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.4/8.6.9) id RAA03023; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:20:05 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199704012220.RAA03023@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: 2.2 using more memory than 2.17 ? In-Reply-To: from Rob Hartill at "Apr 1, 97 09:29:36 pm" To: robh@imdb.com (Rob Hartill) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:20:05 -0500 (EST) Cc: stable@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Looking at "top" on some of my servers, the ones I've moved to 2.2 are > using far more memory than those still on 2.1.7 > > Is this to be expected ? > Yes, but the effects are minimal. > > e.g. on identical P6s the 2.2 box has "60-70mb" active and the 2.1.7 > box has "30-40mb". Two P5s running 2.1.7/2.2 show the same type of > difference. > When thinking of "memory usage" the values of the various page counts is very difficult to interpret. I think that the best indication of running low on memory is to see increased paging. Think of the page counts as large caches. Those caches can be active or (passive, inactive) (coining terminology here.) > > I'm running an Apache binary with mod_perl that was compiled on a 2.1.7 > system. Would the old binary/libs make a difference w.r.t memory usage ? > There's little else running on the machines. > I'll recompile my httpd when I've finished upgrading all the machines. > I wouldn't worry too awful much, unless I/O rates (either in paging or file I/O due to buffer cache misses) are increased. The new code is even more intelligent about not aging often used pages. John From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 1 16:13:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA16539 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:13:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM (Central.TanSoft.COM [208.194.145.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16534 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from devious.Tansoft.com (Devious.TanSoft.COM [208.194.145.10]) by Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA05229 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 19:12:32 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970401191231.008065a0@central.TanSoft.COM> X-Sender: rwm@central.TanSoft.COM X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 19:12:32 -0500 To: stable@freebsd.org From: Rob Miracle Subject: Problems with 2.2.1 and Max Memory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I am trying to get 2.2.1 installed on our Pentium Pro 200 with 256M of memory. I set MAXMEM to "(256*1024)" and I get a panic saying it is out of range. At "(128*1024)" it works fine. Unfortunalty the app I am running is a memory pig. Any ideas on where to look to tweek the thing. The Snap from 100496 worked fine with 256M set. Thanks Rob From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 1 18:54:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA29482 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:54:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29477 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:54:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA21225; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:55:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199704020255.SAA21225@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Rob Miracle cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with 2.2.1 and Max Memory In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Apr 1997 19:12:32 EST." <3.0.32.19970401191231.008065a0@central.TanSoft.COM> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 18:55:38 -0800 Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >I am trying to get 2.2.1 installed on our Pentium Pro 200 with 256M of >memory. I set MAXMEM to "(256*1024)" and I get a panic saying it is out of >range. At "(128*1024)" it works fine. Unfortunalty the app I am running >is a memory pig. Any ideas on where to look to tweek the thing. The Snap >from 100496 worked fine with 256M set. Try removing the "BOUNCE_BUFFERS" kernel option. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project