On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:14:03 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote: >Yes, this is a consequence of the way memory is partitioned on IA32 >machines (which I'm assuming you're using).
Correct - Intel Xeons. >If you look at the amount of memory being used by the kernel slab cache, >I'd bet it's using much of that 1GB for kernel data structures (inodes, >dentrys, etc) and whenever the kernel needs to allocate some more memory >it has to evict some of those structures which is a very expensive process. thorium:/srv/www/vhosts/spamchek/htdocs/admin # cat /proc/slabinfo slabinfo - version: 1.1 (SMP) kmem_cache 116 116 132 4 4 1 : 252 126 ip_conntrack 2688 6162 288 474 474 1 : 124 62 tcp_tw_bucket 480 480 96 12 12 1 : 252 126 tcp_bind_bucket 370 678 32 6 6 1 : 252 126 tcp_open_request 124 177 64 3 3 1 : 252 126 inet_peer_cache 17 354 64 6 6 1 : 252 126 ip_fib_hash 18 339 32 3 3 1 : 252 126 ip_dst_cache 1991 2064 160 86 86 1 : 252 126 arp_cache 11 90 128 3 3 1 : 252 126 blkdev_requests 11264 11280 96 282 282 1 : 252 126 jfs_mp 336 336 80 7 7 1 : 252 126 jfs_ip 338276 359975 524 51425 51425 1 : 124 62 dnotify_cache 0 0 20 0 0 1 : 252 126 file_lock_cache 551 600 96 15 15 1 : 252 126 fasync_cache 0 0 16 0 0 1 : 252 126 uid_cache 11 226 32 2 2 1 : 252 126 skbuff_head_cache 1099 2040 160 85 85 1 : 252 126 sock 1222 1530 864 170 170 2 : 124 62 sigqueue 261 261 132 9 9 1 : 252 126 kiobuf 0 0 64 0 0 1 : 252 126 cdev_cache 16 531 64 9 9 1 : 252 126 bdev_cache 17 177 64 3 3 1 : 252 126 mnt_cache 13 236 64 4 4 1 : 252 126 inode_cache 339288 363713 512 51959 51959 1 : 124 62 dentry_cache 1860 5730 128 191 191 1 : 252 126 filp 8396 8430 128 281 281 1 : 252 126 names_cache 8 8 4096 8 8 1 : 60 30 buffer_head 237627 279520 96 6988 6988 1 : 252 126 mm_struct 432 648 160 27 27 1 : 252 126 vm_area_struct 8956 10040 96 251 251 1 : 252 126 fs_cache 434 826 64 14 14 1 : 252 126 files_cache 371 405 416 45 45 1 : 124 62 signal_act 358 363 1312 121 121 1 : 60 30 OK, I can tell inode_cache is using up a lot here. Apart from using a multi-level subdir structure for my 500.000 files, is there anything else I can tweak to assist the process? Many thanks for the explanation, Sonny - much appreciated! cheers, Per Jessen -- regards, Per Jessen, Zurich http://www.spamchek.com - let your spam stop here! _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
