Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:56:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heh heh, humorous lockup Message-ID: <199907072256.PAA94642@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199907072249.PAA23598@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: : Yes, I do - at least with the 512MB figure. That would be half of the 1GB :KVA space and large systems really need that space for things like network :buffers and other map regions. : :-DG : :David Greenman :Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org :Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com What would be an acceptable upper limit? 256MB? 128MB? The test I ran (Kirk's news test) ate around 60MB for the "FFS Node" memory area before the number of vnodes stabilized, on a 1GB machine. I would say that a 128MB upper limit would be too small for a 4G machine. A 256MB limit ought to work for a 4G machine Since most of those news files were small, I think Kirk's news test code is pretty much the worse case scenario as far as vnode allocation goes. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> 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?199907072256.PAA94642>