Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 16:09:46 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heh heh, humorous lockup Message-ID: <199907072309.QAA23725@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:56:12 PDT." <199907072256.PAA94642@apollo.backplane.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. Well, I could possibly live with 256MB, but the vnode/fsnode consumption seems to be getting a bit silly in the memory overhead department, even for machines with 4GB of RAM. It seems like there needs to be fewer of them and/or they need to go on a diet. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.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?199907072309.QAA23725>