----- Forwarded message (env-from joe) -----

From joe Mon Nov  6 08:49:47 2000
Subject: Re: UBC indications
In-Reply-To: <20001106003314.A4441@spathi.chuq.com> from Chuck Silvers at "Nov 6, 2000 00:33:14 am"
To: chuq@chuq.com (Chuck Silvers)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:49:47 -0500 (EST)
Reply-to: jsarkes@tiac.net
Content-Length:  1274

> right, the UBC code doesn't print anything during the boot process.
> 
> the way to tell that it's there is to do a bunch of file access
> that didn't fit in the cache before but that does fit now.
> the amount of memory available for cached file data under UBC is
> currently about 85% of the amount listed in the "avail memory = X" line.
> 
> another way to tell that it's there is to access data via both
> read()/write() and via mmap() and see that these two interfaces
> to the filesystem now return the same data, whereas before
> you'd see cache incoherency.  I've put a program to demonstrate
> this named "vmtest.c" in the same directory with the diffs.

The test program does show the difference. systat/bufcache will
fault if it isn't rebuilt, and after rebuild, it shows the just the
normal 5% size buffer cache. Does the ubc tie in differently, or 
are there just updates that need to be done on utilities that 
check memory usage?

BTW, I had installed the ubc patch, and then my system started
dieing, but I think it was the ld.so stuff that was just fixed and
nothing to do with the ubc, as my "good" kernel wouldn't boot either,
and it predated the changes. Now everything seems to be working again.


> 
> -Chuck
> 


-- 
Joseph Sarkes		jsarkes@tiac.net

----- End of forwarded message (env-from joe) -----

-- 
Joseph Sarkes		jsarkes@tiac.net