From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 24 17:08:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AA916A4A0 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:08:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mail.localelinks.com (web.localelinks.com [64.39.75.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C588343D45 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:08:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from draco.over-yonder.net (adsl-072-148-013-213.sip.jan.bellsouth.net [72.148.13.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.localelinks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C126D3E1; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:08:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: by draco.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id BBDA761C2B; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:08:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:08:29 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Chuck Swiger Message-ID: <20060624170829.GO83482@over-yonder.net> References: <20060623172557.H1114@ganymede.hub.org> <261AD16B-C3FE-4671-996E-563053508CE8@mac.com> <20060623191131.C1114@ganymede.hub.org> <20060623231121.GL83482@over-yonder.net> <20060623220204.L1114@ganymede.hub.org> <20060624013305.GN83482@over-yonder.net> <20060623225437.C1114@ganymede.hub.org> <449CB3C4.2060509@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <449CB3C4.2060509@mac.com> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11-fullermd.3 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vmstat 'b' (disk busy?) field keeps climbing ... 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: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:08:33 -0000 On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:38:44PM -0400 I heard the voice of Chuck Swiger, and lo! it spake thus: > > Yeah-- it's more common for a system to need more RAM for dynamicly > allocated content which would be placed into the swapfile then it > uses binary executable pages, it's possible to go the other way, > too. Yeah, and it's WAY the other way. 0 swap pager pageins 0 swap pager pageouts 31750 vnode pager pageins 15954 vnode pager pageouts That speaks of HUGE memory pressure in program text; plenty for the 'data' of the programs, but really really tight for the programs themselves. That'll also lead to a lot of disk thrashing. And there aren't even all that many fork() calls, relative to my box (of course, mine does things like ports builds that spawn of totally stupid numbers of processes, so that may be a quirk here rather than there). Perhaps rebuilding a bunch of stuff with -Os will gain you some breathing room, but more memory or less load is probably the only real answer. And I think you already had 4 gig in an i386 box, so you're kinda in trouble on the memory side. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.