Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:54:45 -0800 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_object.c Message-ID: <199603291854.KAA02630@Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:51:07 GMT." <199603291151.LAA01479@tees>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>In reply to David Greenman who said >> >> davidg 96/03/28 22:30:20 >> >> Branch: sys/vm RELENG_2_1_0 >> Modified: sys/vm vm_object.c >> Log: >> Revert to previous calculation of vm_object_cache_max: it simply works >> better in most real-world cases. This comes after extensive analysis of >> file caching behavior on wcarchive... > >Is wcarchive really that good a platform for deciding what good generic >solutions are? Very few of us run wcarchive's. You should not infer from the above that wcarchive is the *only* data point I use to determine the proper setting of this parameter. That would be far from the truth. Both the previous and current settings of vm_object_cache max are satisfactory for standard use of FreeBSD. vm_object_cache_max sets the limit on the total number of files that may be cached in the system. It only becomes a factor on systems with large amounts of memory and lots of file activity. I had previously increased it because I thought that it wasn't large enough for big systems like wcarchive. I was wrong so now I'm changing it back. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603291854.KAA02630>