Subject: Re: interactive sluggishness invades once again
To: Chuck Silvers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
Date: 12/12/2001 05:02:31
I've updated current a few times since you added your changes, and for some
reason, those new sysctl's never showed up. I have them in my sysctl.conf,
and every time I boot it tells me they're invalid, and I don't see the new
names (execmin,execmax,etc) in sysctl -a, either. Am I doing something
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:09:32AM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> I made some changes last weekend that were supposed to get rid of
> all of these problems entirely for the default configuration.
> it works pretty well for me, but I'm guessing that it's not working
> as intended for you.
> is process anonymous data getting paged out for you when it shouldn't now?
> the default configuration is that the system will allow anonymous data
> and program executables together to use up to 50% of memory before any
> of it will be paged out. is that not happening? note that idle processes
> will still be "swapped out" even with the new changes, but their data
> and executable pages will still be in memory even though ps won't show
> it anymore. these days, "swapped out" just means that some of the
> kernel data structures that describe a process are reclaimed, not that
> the memory holding the process's data itself is reclaimed. if you
> want to get a better picture of what's going on, insert this line at
> the top of uvm_scheduler():
> for (;;) tsleep(&proc0, PVM, "noswap", 0);
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:00:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> > Is it just my imagination, or have others seen it too?
> > Yesterday I updated from binaries based on a Nov 24 cvs update to
> > source based on Dec 10, and now my system is once again *very*
> > unresponsive when I'm (for example), doing a tar of a directory tree
> > into a 450MB tarfile (no compression).
> > This is the way things were until a couple months ago, when they
> > straightened out quite nicely, maybe even a bit worse. Before, the
> > only problem was that emacs would become *completely* swapped out and
> > take forever to swap back in; now even my mouse pointer is several
> > seconds behind mouse movements (I'm running VNC as an X server,
> > displayed remotely on a Windows PC).
> > Has something changed, or am I just a hypochondriac?
/~\ The ASCII Sean Davis
\ / Ribbon Campaign aka dive-o
X Against HTML
/ \ Email! firstname.lastname@example.org