From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jul 17 18:53:03 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id SAA04499
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 18:53:03 -0700
Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA04492
          ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 18:53:01 -0700
Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA05107; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 21:53:53 -0400
From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <199507180153.VAA05107@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: File cache needs lower vm priority
To: dyson@freefall.cdrom.com (John Dyson)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 21:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199507172355.QAA01087@freefall.cdrom.com> from "John Dyson" at Jul 17, 95 04:55:51 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 751       
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> The file cache is about as low in priority as it can be.  The pages
> in the file cache that are not pointed to by buffers are in the
> cache list.  Those pages are almost as available as free pages.  If
> you have any pages in the cache list, then you should not block waiting
> for memory.
>
> It might be that the overhead for the buffer management is getting to
> your machine.  I am currently working on improving the efficiency, but
> on a /66 or faster the overhead should not be a killer.

Its on a P100, but w/ a fast SCSI disk.  Hopefully with all the new vm chanegs,
things will improve dramatically.

-Crh

    Charles Henrich     Michigan State University     henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu

                     http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/