[lkml]   [1997]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Badblocks and no free pages...
    Sun, 4 May 1997 Doug Ledford wrote:>
    >> Can I report the following as bugs:
    >> - The fact that badblocks doesn't help prevent accidents is a bit unfortunate.
    >> - The fact that it generates "Couldn't get a free page" seems bad.
    >> In particular, why should this happen during writing? What needs to
    >> do an atomic page allocation?
    >It's all because we are filling up all available RAM with write behind
    >buffers. Whenever it can't get a free page, it simply waits for some to
    >become available. Not a bug really, just shows us that the program is
    >writing as fast as it can.
    >> - The unusable sluggishness of the machine is a bug.
    >It was never intended to be something that you would run during normal
    >usage, it's a shake down, tear the drives and controllers apart type test
    >that should be run when you are aware of what these types of tests do to
    >machine performance and are prepared to wait for it to finish before
    >actually trying to do anything :)

    I noticed something alike when doing "mke2fs" on a 9GB volume in 2.0.28.
    Is there a way to limit write behind buffers so more memory is available
    for other uses. Allocating more than eg. 2Mbyte per device won't speed things
    up I think. Programs like "badblocks" or "mke2fs" will use all available
    space for buffering.


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.017 / U:43.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site