Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 19 May 2001 06:40:14 +0200 (CEST) | | From | Mike Galbraith <> | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10 |
| |
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi, > > On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion > > of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in: > > there is no clear overview of exactly what would need to be > > tunable and how it would help. > > It's worse than that. The workload on most typical systems is not > static. The VM *must* be able to cope with dynamic workloads. You > might twiddle all the knobs on your system to make your database run > faster, but end up in such a situation that the next time a mail flood > arrives for sendmail, the whole box locks up because the VM can no > longer adapt. > > That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are > trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also > why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)
Yup. The problems are dynamic even with my static test load.
Off the top of my head, if I could make a suggestion to the vm it would be something like "don't let dirty pages lay idle any longer than this" and maybe "reclaim cleaned pages older than that".
-Mike
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |