From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 12 18:40:02 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA26914 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA26871 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id UAA00150; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:35:19 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199608130135.UAA00150@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. NT Stability To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:35:19 -0500 (EST) Cc: koshy@india.hp.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199608121658.JAA25522@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Aug 12, 96 09:58:51 am Reply-To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > There are many ways to thrash NT to death. The test program that sparked > this debate thrashes the buffer cache significantly because of the lack > of per FS object working set restrictions. In VMS, this would be a > tunable. > I have some working code for FreeBSD that implements a system-wide quota of per-vnode dirty buffer space (those are the only ones that cannot be reclaimed immediately.). John