Subject: Re: UVM/other problems for desktop users in current?
To: John Franklin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jukka Marin <email@example.com>
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
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.