From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 23:20:44 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586A81065673 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:20:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leroy.vanlogchem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com (mail-qw0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D758FC1D for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:20:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qwd6 with SMTP id 6so142056qwd.13 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=TubZNVL6t5j3BkjAikk/8gflDjI8/ehMR6bvX13zAeQ=; b=ourgUcNNE2jXDA04MGBalijk2hwbQr+gASEzCuJUj37hpLtGhRZtfnAipV8yRkmce/ qLHrCb7aWKPneQuKBCzFSWzMcyHbAGt+axKtEu/o4IQTyLtczq9b1LvUMwAUYowoLKv/ kzfCSS9+GduT0mdnY/axCvZtolPcZH2qezLcc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Smo/tYsSIwNG0YDQ3Fjy0ao2eKcOswl6hiSx7ZJ+LIK/lBXF5SH0aYdqhHhDSWb675 oIfrvWspWGeNQUnpuaMTKZKgOMlsCd32LQEEILYBWI0yOpUxMOzSizxy2kFiZxwrprEW zHA41zXGYQTzMcT8vsvRiqi4s3L2yinit5RVQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.35.5 with SMTP id n5mr347847qcd.175.1285716041620; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.2.25 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:20:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Leroy van Logchem To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Still getting kmem exhausted panic X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:20:44 -0000 >> Thanks for the clarification. I just wish I knew how vm.kmem_size_scale >> fit into the picture (meaning what it does, etc.). The sysctl >> description isn't very helpful. Again, my lack of VM knowledge... >> >Roughly, vm.kmem_size would get set to divided by >vm.kmem_size_scale. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-September/059114.html Thanks again for the explication, i was amiss after the post above. So increasing kmem_size_scale will reduce the resulting kmem_size. /*correct me if i'm wrong - "divided by" triggered this post*/