From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 7 13:31:08 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D480816A417 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:31:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2001:1b20:1:3::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113A013C481 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:31:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (shkjof@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l77DV07Y090258; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:31:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id l77DUtnb090255; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:30:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:30:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200708071330.l77DUtnb090255@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jonny@jonny.eng.br In-Reply-To: <46B2A4DC.4080000@jonny.eng.br> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:31:05 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: Problems with rpc.statd and PAE X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jonny@jonny.eng.br List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:31:08 -0000 João Carlos Mendes Luís wrote: > Don Lewis wrote: > > I've been seeing this same problem for a long time on an 7.0-CURRENT > > i386 machine with 1GB of RAM, and I'm not using PAE. I haven't > > discovered any obvious cause for the problem. > > It's a production file server, so I cannot make any test today, but this > weekend I'll try to recompile statd to use less memory. > > Is there a good reason to map 256M at once? Is there a good reason _not_ to do it? rpc.statd has always mapped 256M, for as long as FreeBSD exists (maybe longer). I've never had a proble with that. Obviously it does that because it makes managing the state data easier. That's enough of a good reason, I think. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "File names are infinite in length, where infinity is set to 255 characters." -- Peter Collinson, "The Unix File System"