Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:12:30 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/include vmparam.h Message-ID: <20040817021230.GA89496@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040816193941.P32601@pooker.samsco.org> References: <200408160835.i7G8ZM6d068546@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040816232834.GF57908@elvis.mu.org> <20040817011018.GA67171@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040816191337.B32601@pooker.samsco.org> <20040817013700.GB88749@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040816193941.P32601@pooker.samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 07:42:21PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > I want to know why the limit that you chose is attributed to me and a > quick suggestion that I made in an email? You gave me the figure of 100000 for kern.maxvnodes max limit. You sounded rather authoritative at the time, that a general purpose workstation wouldn't want more than that. You've so back peddled from this I'm sorry I took your suggested value. RU has complained I wasn't giving 0 attributes in commit messages, so I gave you attribution. I won't make that mistake again. So you're saying that a kern.maxvnodes of 150000 is a good default figure on a 4GB machine? If it bothers you that much I'll bump MAXVNODES_MAX or remove the limiting. I personally haven't needed kern.maxvnodes this high on a general purpose workstation or department server. > I'll say it again. It's a hard problem. If I knew the easy answer I > would have committed it long ago. Like everything else in FreeBSD'ville -- one works on the itch they are experiencing at the moment. I'm scratching the 'panicing on lightly loaded 4GB systems isn't acceptable' itch since I'm itching all over. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040817021230.GA89496>