From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: David Greenman <dg@root.com>, Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <murray@FreeBSD.ORG>, <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Recommendation for minor KVM adjustments for the release Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0108191749140.5646-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <200108191853.f7JIrAP45731@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > : Uh, I don't think you understand what this limit is about. It's > :essentially the limit on the amount of filesystem directory data that > :can be cached. It does not limit the amount of file data that can > :be cached - that is only limited by the amount of RAM in the machine. > Yes, and the buffer cache determines how much dirty file-backed data > (via write() or mmap()) the system is allowed to accumulate before > it forces it out, which should probably be the greater concern here. How hard would it be to allow dirty data in the file cache, without buffer mappings ? regards, Rik -- IA64: a worthy successor to i860. http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33L.0108191749140.5646-100000>