Messages in this thread | | | From | Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <> | Subject | Re: [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks | Date | Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:21:06 +0200 |
| |
> > I mean - this code solved _my_ problem. Without it the server OOMs within > > minutes of high load, as explained earlier. I'd rather like a clean fix > > in 2.4 than this, although it works. > > I'm sure Andrew could explain this better than I - he wrote the > code, I just whined about the problem. Basically he frees the > buffer_head immediately after he's used it, which could at least > in theory degrade performance a little if it could have been reused. > Now, nobody's ever really benchmarked that, so a more conservative > approach is likely to be taken, unless someone can prove it doesn't > degrade performance much for people who don't need the fix. One > of the cases people were running scared of was something doing > continual overwrites of a file, I think something like: > > for (i=0;i<BIGNUMBER;i++) { > lseek (0); > write 4K of data; > } > > Or something. > > Was your workload doing lots of reads, or lots of writes? Or both?
I was downloading large files @ ~ 4Mbps from 20-50 clients - filesize ~3GB the box has 1GB memory minus (no highmem) - so - 900 megs. After some time it starts swapping and it OOMs. Same happens with several userspace httpd's
roy
-- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester ProntoTV AS - http://www.pronto.tv/ Tel: +47 9801 3356
Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows.
- 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/
| |