Subject: Re: Swapping problems
To: George Michaelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Laine Stump <email@example.com>
Date: 06/27/1996 14:11:48
George Michaelson writes:
> two different things might help:
> merged vm/iobuf cache. would remove some dup usage and copying.
> probably would see perf gains to match sunos on that platform.
> improve minfree behaviour. what to swap when you are close to
> thrashing is a good question. surely just tuning the minfree
> requirement down to ensure some "core" code (update/init whatever)
> is around would help?
Can you expand on this a bit? Is any of this doable by just tuning
things in the kernel configuration, or does it take digging into
/usr/src/sys/vm/*? I'd really like to see this improved, but my last
exposure to vm stuff (other than diddling with page registers on a 386,
which is really a totally different topic) was about 13 years ago in an
undergrad OS course.
> increasing swap markedly might also have helped
We have it configured for 512MB of swap (256MB on each of the two
disks). I can't imagine it ever having a use for more.
> I thought the swap/vm
> thing was kinda related for long-lived processes. your make doesn't
> sound quite the same as people finding a 60mn named has locked up...
It's a different problem. I haven't really been bothered by the swap
leak problem; I guess the long lived processes I have running (no named,
just nfsd, nfsiod, ypbind, gated, sendmail, and the "standard" things
like init et al) don't do as much allocation as named.