From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 10 14:56: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from netbank.com.br (garrincha.netbank.com.br [200.203.199.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CED737B443 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:55:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from riel@conectiva.com.br) Received: from surriel.ddts.net (3-019.cwb-adsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.193.162.19]) by netbank.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0724681D; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:56:12 -0300 (BRST) Received: from localhost (fcgiuo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by surriel.ddts.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3ALkef29990; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:46:41 -0300 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:46:40 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@imladris.rielhome.conectiva To: Matt Dillon Cc: David Xu , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vm balance In-Reply-To: <200104101827.f3AIR3H89467@earth.backplane.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > :I heard NetBSD has implemented a FreeBSD like VM, it also implemented > :a VM balance in recent verion of NetBSD. some parameters like TEXT, > :DATA and anonymous memory space can be tuned. is there anyone doing > :such work on FreeBSD or has FreeBSD already implemented it? > > FreeBSD implements a very sophisticated VM balancing algorithm. Nobody's > complaining about it so I don't think we need to really change it. Most > of the other UNIXes, including Linux, are actually playing catch-up to > FreeBSD's VM design. In the balancing part, definately. FreeBSD seems to be the only system that has the balancing right. I'm planning on integrating some of the balancing tactics into Linux for the 2.5 kernel, but I'm not sure how to integrate the inode and dentry cache into the balancing scheme ... I'm curious about the other things though ... FreeBSD still seems to have the early 90's abstraction layer from Mach and the vnode cache doesn't seem to grow and shrink dynamically (which can be a big win for systems with lots of metadata activity). So while it's true that FreeBSD's VM balancing seems to be the best one out there, I'm not quite sure about the rest of the VM... regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message