From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 19 9:18:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F7537B401; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:18:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27936; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:18:28 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24639; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:18:27 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15231.59091.431242.582447@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:18:27 -0600 To: David Greenman Cc: Sergey Babkin , Matt Dillon , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, murray@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Recommendation for minor KVM adjustments for the release 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> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >> > - 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