From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 21:43:58 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1027C16A41C for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:43:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vorokov@gmail.com) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D067443D1D for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:43:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vorokov@gmail.com) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 12so550227nzp for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:43:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=HzKFP6bwkhot2fTBM5eFlmhFZCwI7ln/EipIdGkv2xUPgnEDHTZLK6rXLAR6+7Z36UB+/CT1b67kyt+5FwvN3d4OfYnX17aa+FVlYdaUFHwKpSCut+iipGqJvgcgVTKgeGTjD2JN8WUY/dNvUo/Y5RaNg/PaJ5kmLd3dLPJAUpU= Received: by 10.36.71.13 with SMTP id t13mr1692669nza; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.58.2 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50d6c40d0506171443763ff58f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:43:53 +0400 From: "Eugene L. Vorokov" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Subject: disk cache tuning X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Eugene L. Vorokov" List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:43:58 -0000 Hello. I have a box with FreeBSD 5.4, where disk subsystem is a bottleneck. It runs several applications which access huge number of files, usually sma= ll. They do not require a lot of memory, network I/O is also not very intensive= . I have read tuning(7), enabled softupdates, noatime and such. But I have an impression that most of the memory (1Gb) is not really used, while it could= be used for disk cache. top(1) reports about 800Mb as inactive, and reading 200-300Mb of information from disk still causes a lot of disk activity. How can I increase the amount of memory used for disk cache without touchin= g other subsystems ? As far as I understand, simply increasing MAXUSERS is no= t a good idea, because it will also increase NMBCLUSTERS and such, which I do not really want. Please Cc: me as I'm not on this list. Regards, Eugene