Sonny Rao wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 04:59:19PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 12:30 -0600, Steven Pratt wrote:
Also, is it maybe time to increase the default number of locks? We had
similar problems on large systems in SLES9 testing and we still have to
run SPECSFS with TxLocks set to 65k.
+ struct sysinfo si;
+
+ /* Set defaults for nTxLock and nTxBlock if unset */
+
+ if (nTxLock == -1) {
+ if (nTxBlock == -1) {
+ /* Base default on memory size */
+ si_meminfo(&si);
+ if (si.totalram > (256 * 1024)) /* 1 GB */
+ nTxLock = 64 * 1024;
+ else
+ nTxLock = si.totalram >> 2;
+ } else if (nTxBlock > (8 * 1024))
+ nTxLock = 64 * 1024;
+ else
+ nTxLock = nTxBlock << 3;
+ }
+ if (nTxBlock == -1)
+ nTxBlock = nTxLock >> 3;
So, to summarize this logic, if you haven't set anything and you have
more than 1GB of ram total, the number of TxLocks is maxed out. If
you haven't set anything and you have 1GB of RAM or less, then you
get something like a quarter of the number of kilobytes of ram worth
of txlocks? If you have exactly 1GB of RAM, then won't that number
be too big? ( 1048576 / 4 == 262144 )
No, because the math is on pages not KB. So 262144 (pages) / 4 = 65536
locks, or max.
Both the number of txlocks and txblocks are limited to a 16bit number
correct?
Yes, I think.
Steve
Sonny
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
Jfs-discussion@www-124.ibm.com
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
