Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:53:06 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vmstat 'b' (disk busy?) field keeps climbing ... Message-ID: <20060624145059.Y1114@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20060624170829.GO83482@over-yonder.net> References: <20060623172557.H1114@ganymede.hub.org> <261AD16B-C3FE-4671-996E-563053508CE8@mac.com> <20060623191131.C1114@ganymede.hub.org> <20060623231121.GL83482@over-yonder.net> <20060623220204.L1114@ganymede.hub.org> <20060624013305.GN83482@over-yonder.net> <20060623225437.C1114@ganymede.hub.org> <449CB3C4.2060509@mac.com> <20060624170829.GO83482@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:38:44PM -0400 I heard the voice of > Chuck Swiger, and lo! it spake thus: >> >> Yeah-- it's more common for a system to need more RAM for dynamicly >> allocated content which would be placed into the swapfile then it >> uses binary executable pages, it's possible to go the other way, >> too. > > Yeah, and it's WAY the other way. > > 0 swap pager pageins > 0 swap pager pageouts > 31750 vnode pager pageins > 15954 vnode pager pageouts > > That speaks of HUGE memory pressure in program text; plenty for the > 'data' of the programs, but really really tight for the programs > themselves. That'll also lead to a lot of disk thrashing. And there > aren't even all that many fork() calls, relative to my box (of course, > mine does things like ports builds that spawn of totally stupid > numbers of processes, so that may be a quirk here rather than there). > > Perhaps rebuilding a bunch of stuff with -Os will gain you some > breathing room, but more memory or less load is probably the only real > answer. And I think you already had 4 gig in an i386 box, so you're > kinda in trouble on the memory side. Would having only 1 CPU (1 died, used to be two) cause this, or pure memory? And, if things are *that* tight, shouldn't it be doing more swapping? pluto# pstat -s Device 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity /dev/da0s1b 8388608 7324 8381284 0% pluto# uptime 2:52PM up 20:17, 5 users, load averages: 1.26, 4.08, 5.64 pluto# >From top: last pid: 46611; load averages: 1.09, 3.86, 5.53 up 0+20:17:38 14:52:16 1311 processes:9 running, 1301 sleeping, 1 zombie CPU states: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 3.0% system, 0.4% interrupt, 95.6% idle Mem: 3088M Active, 349M Inact, 313M Wired, 165M Cache, 112M Buf, 27M Free Swap: 8192M Total, 7268K Used, 8185M Free ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060624145059.Y1114>