From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 31 09:49:04 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FE216A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 462F343D70
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:48:44 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org)
Received: (qmail 38506 invoked by uid 1002); 31 Jan 2004 17:48:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) (64.58.1.252)
  by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 31 Jan 2004 17:48:27 -0000
Message-ID: <401BE9E5.5050200@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:46:13 -0700
From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031103
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Hilker <ah@crypta.net>
References: <20040130124818.T2246@gandalf.midgard.liu.se>
	<20040131003843.I10185@alpha.siliconlandmark.com>
	<401BD9D6.7020904@freebsd.org> <20040131173409.GA79338@mail.crypta.net>
In-Reply-To: <20040131173409.GA79338@mail.crypta.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 5.2-RELEASE crash
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:49:04 -0000

Andy Hilker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>Also, the scaling of kern.maxvnodes doesn't work very well.  On a large
>>memory system, it will typically set this to 200,000-300,000.  If you
>>don't need this many, then it is easier to just crank it down to a more
>>reasonable level than fiddle with the KMEM parameters.
> 
> 
> And what is reasonable level or how i determine it? :)
> 
> Andy
> 

Look at what you are doing with your system.  If you're serving a 
high-traffic website with hundreds of thousands of files, you might not
want to lower the maxvnode limit.  If you're only dealing with a small
working set of files that only spikes occasionally, lowering the limit
is probably a good thing.

Scott