From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug  8 06:49:46 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE0716A41F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2005 06:49:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from BORJAMAR@SARENET.ES)
Received: from sollube.sarenet.es (mx1.sarenet.es [194.30.0.37])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47AC43D45
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2005 06:49:45 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from BORJAMAR@SARENET.ES)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (borja.sarenet.es [192.148.167.77])
	by sollube.sarenet.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B432C2436;
	Mon,  8 Aug 2005 08:49:43 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20050807214338.GA34438@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <20050807185129.GA61807@frontfree.net>
	<20050807214338.GA34438@hub.freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <86718C14-B790-43FE-94E0-499ECBB4FA34@SARENET.ES>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Borja Marcos <BORJAMAR@SARENET.ES>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:49:46 +0200
To: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Bumping ufs.dirhash_maxmem to a larger value?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:49:46 -0000

> So why not make the determination of "dirhash_maxmem" the result of  
> some
> calculation(s) that takes into account RAM size, etc ?
>
> The obvious lesson here is that picking a number to be a limit  
> based on
> the current size of machines fails the test of time.

     I think that changing it now without a mechanism to reduce the  
memory amount in case of memory shortages would be a violation of the  
Principle of Minimal Surprise.




     Borja.