Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:56:38 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>, "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@iteration.net>, izero@ms26.hinet.net, cross@math.psu.edu, grog@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded s cerver Message-ID: <20010321095638.H12319@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103211328310.9056-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva>; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 01:31:45PM -0300 References: <200103211114.f2LBE0h57371@mobile.wemm.org> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103211328310.9056-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> [010321 09:51] wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > Also, 4MB = 1024 pages, at 28 bytes per mapping == 28k per process. > > 28 bytes/mapping is a LOT. I've implemented an (admittedly > not completely architecture-independent) reverse mapping > patch for Linux with an overhead of 8 bytes/pte... > > I wonder how hard/easy would it be to reduce the memory > overhead of some of these old Mach data structures in FreeBSD... "Our" Alan Cox <alc@freebsd.org> and Tor Egge have been trimming these structs down for quite some time. Perhaps they should look at Linux's system, however last I checked Linux's was an order of magnitude less complex which might prohibit that simplification in FreeBSD. If you have suggestions, let's hear them. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010321095638.H12319>