Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:18:27 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, murray@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Recommendation for minor KVM adjustments for the release Message-ID: <15231.59091.431242.582447@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20010819025200.C76779@nexus.root.com> References: <200108181549.f7IFntw39740@earth.backplane.com> <20010818155924.D63814@nexus.root.com> <3B7F0F1E.45A25AC5@bellatlantic.net> <20010819025200.C76779@nexus.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> > - I would like to cap the size of the buffer cache at 200MB, > >> > giving us another 70MB or so of KVM which is equivalent to > >> > another 30,000 or so nmbclusters. > >> > >> That also seems like overkill for the vast majority of systems. > > > >But probably not for the large-memory systems (and on the machines > >with small memory the limit will be smaller anyway). Having a > >machine with a few gigs of memory and being able to use only 200MB > >for the buffer cache seems to be quite bad for a general-purpose > >machine. > > Uh, I don't think you understand what this limit is about. It's > essentially the limit on the amount of filesystem directory data that > can be cached. It does not limit the amount of file data that can > be cached - that is only limited by the amount of RAM in the machine. Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I retract my previous email about limiting this as well. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15231.59091.431242.582447>