cache limit
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines · Mike Fedyk
Quoted 6 lines · Takao Indoh
Quoted 5 lines
I need a tuning parameter which can control pagecache
like/proc/sys/vm/pagecache, which RedHat Linux has.
The latest 2.4 or 2.5 standard kernel does not have such a parameter. 2.4.18 kernel or 2.4-aa kernel has a alternative method?
Quoted 6 lines
I doubt that there will be that option in the 2.4 stable series. I think you are trying to fix the problem without understanding the entire picture. If there is too much pagechache, then the kernel developers need to know about your workload so that they can fix it. But you have to try -aa first to see if it's already fixed.
Let me give my point of view.
Linux trys to scale up to the limits of given hardware.
That is _*horribly*_ wrong.
If I have 1GB of memory and my applications for use only 16MB - it
doesn't mean I want to fill 1GB-16MB with garbage like file my momy had viewed two weeks ago.
That's it: OS should scale for *application* *needs*.
Can you compare in your mind overhead of managing 1GB of cache with
managing e.g. 16MB of cache?
So IMHO problem is: OS needless overhead.
It is possible to minimize overhead in several ways:
1) Optimize algorithms and data structures.
2) Minimize amount of resources.
3) As a compromise of 1&2 - teach OS to not use unneeded resource til
the time they will be really needed, and free them afterwards.
1) is already done, 3) is awful heuristics which will never work
reliably.
And Takao's patch was trying to approach problem from 2) point. So as for me it is justified.
Comments are welcome.
Quoted 9 lines · Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
If I have 1GB of memory and my applications for use only 16MB - it
doesn't mean I want to fill 1GB-16MB with garbage like file my momy had viewed two weeks ago.That's it: OS should scale for *application* *needs*.
Can you compare in your mind overhead of managing 1GB of cache with
managing e.g. 16MB of cache?
Ok, let's benchmark it.
Yes, I can see the logic in your argument, but at this point, numbers are needed to see if or how much of a win this might be.