lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.028 / U:0.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site