[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks
> > 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 Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
ProntoTV AS -
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.117 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site