Subject: Re: UVM/other problems for desktop users in current?
To: John Franklin <>
From: Jukka Marin <>
List: current-users
Date: 12/20/2002 00:32:34
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:28:03PM -0500, John Franklin wrote:
> > Yep, it reported using 127 MB and worked.
> Have you send-pr'd this?  I could see serious heavy-duty, 4G RAM, 
> multi-GigE NAS boxes wanting more than 128M of BUFCACHE.  


> > During cvs update, both CPU's (server and client) were almost idle, but
> > running "df" took at least 20 seconds and everything was pretty slow.
> > Not nice.
> Wow, that's way off from what should happen.  Have you ruled out other
> potential issues?  Bad NICs, hubs/switches, cats chewing on the cables?

Don't have another switch to try.  I guess I should buy another one.

> Is your drive starting to fail?  Has the Server Union announced a work
> slow-down?

Heh.  I hope the almost-brand-new WDC's aren't failing yet ;)  The problems
only show up when the server is doing lots of disk I/O (during backups,
cvs updates etc.).  No error messages in the server's logs.

> What does "sysctl kern.maxvnodes" return?

17645 on the server.  I'll try upping this.