From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 10 22:14:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from filk.iinet.net.au (syncopation-dns.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 193D237B423 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:14:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: (qmail 3287 invoked by uid 666); 11 Apr 2001 05:17:22 -0000 Received: from i188-081.nv.iinet.net.au (HELO elischer.org) (203.59.188.81) by mail.m.iinet.net.au with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 05:17:22 -0000 Message-ID: <3AD3E834.AFB6C5BA@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:14:28 -0700 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel Cc: Matt Dillon , David Xu , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, mckusick@mckusick.com Subject: Re: vm balance References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Rik van Riel wrote: > > I'm curious about the other things though ... FreeBSD still seems > to have the early 90's abstraction layer from Mach and the vnode > cache doesn't seem to grow and shrink dynamically (which can be a > big win for systems with lots of metadata activity). > > So while it's true that FreeBSD's VM balancing seems to be the > best one out there, I'm not quite sure about the rest of the VM... > Many years ago Kirk was talking about merging the vm objects and the vnodes.. (they tend to come in pairs anyhow) I still think it might be an idea worth investigating further. kirk? -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000-2001 ---> X_.---._/ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message