lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.4.19rc2aa1 VM too aggressive?
From
Date
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 16:03, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002, David Rees <dbr@greenhydrant.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 04:33:50PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > > I recently upgraded a web server I run to a the 2.4.19rc2aa1 kernel to
> > > see how much better the VM is.
> > >
> > > It seems to be better than the older 2.4 kernels used on this machine,
> > > but there seems to be lots of motion in the cache for all of the free
> > > memory that exists:
> > >
> > > procs memory swap io system cpu
> > > 3 0 0 106036 502288 10812 67236 0 0 0 0 802 494 46 37 17
> > > 5 0 2 106032 476188 10844 91496 0 0 4 316 905 573 54 37 8
> > > 16 0 2 106032 355400 10844 203880 0 0 4 0 909 540 51 49 0
> > > 10 0 2 106024 340108 10852 221548 0 0 28 0 975 659 36 64 0
> > > 0 0 0 106024 528340 10852 43572 0 0 4 0 569 426 17 17 67
> > > 0 1 0 106024 531304 10852 43612 0 0 4 0 542 342 9 14 77
...

> Web server. The only writing is for the log files, which is relatively
> minimal.

But IMHO, you are using prefork, and not a threaded model correct?

>
> One thing also, is there is lots of process creation in this example.
> For a variety of reasons, PHP programs are forked often from the Apache
> server.

Also, here, even as a DSO, which I think you may not be running PHP as,
(cgi vs. dso), you will use a bit of memory, on top of apache, every
time the new child is created by apache to handle incoming requests.

> The systems running an older kernel (like RedHat's 2.4.9-21) are much
> more consistent in their usage of memory. There are no 150MB swings in
> cache utiliziation, etc.

Hrrmmm....I'd suggest a 2.4.17 or 2.4.19-rc1-aa2 in that case. I promise
you'll see drastic improvements over that kernel.
> What's really odd in the vmstat output is the fact that there is no disk
> I/O that follows these wild swings. Where is this cache memory coming
> from? Or is the accounting just wrong?

I think the accounting is quite correct. Let's look real quick.

<vmstat>
> > > procs memory swap io system cpu
> > > 3 0 0 106036 502288 10812 67236 0 0 0 0 802 494 46 37 17
> > > 5 0 2 106032 476188 10844 91496 0 0 4 316 905 573 54 37 8
> > > 16 0 2 106032 355400 10844 203880 0 0 4 0 909 540 51 49 0
> > > 10 0 2 106024 340108 10852 221548 0 0 28 0 975 659 36 64 0
> > > 0 0 0 106024 528340 10852 43572 0 0 4 0 569 426 17 17 67
> > > 0 1 0 106024 531304 10852 43612 0 0 4 0 542 342 9 14
</vmstat>

Now let's take a closer look....
<vmstat2>
> > > 16 0 2 106032 355400 10844 203880 0 0 4 0 909 540 51 49 0
> > > 10 0 2 106024 340108 10852 221548 0 0 28 0 975 659 36 64 0
</vmstat2>


Notice you're memory utilization jumps here as your free is given to
cache.

<vmstat3>
> > > 0 0 0 106024 528340 10852 43572 0 0 4 0 569 426 17 17 67
> > > 0 1 0 106024 531304 10852 43612 0 0 4 0 542 342 9 14
</vmstat3>

And then back again, probably on process termination.

At that rate, it's all in-memory shuffling going on, and for preforks,
that very likely is the case.

> JE
>
> -
> 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/
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@digitalroadkill.net>
-
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 13:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site