hi
> > a) Add more RAM - that is the real optimal approach
> > b) Make the processes smaller (eg switch to thttpd from www.acme.com)
> > c) Speed up the I/O throughput relative to CPU speed
> > - eg the 2.2 IDE UDMA patches
> d)Reduce the number of Apache processes so they fit nicely
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure it is the file buffers as the apache is already
> > reniced to 20, it is got max 50 processes and each of processes is
> > limited to like 1.5mb of size via ulimit.
>
> nice wont help you, it controls
hi
a) Add more RAM - that is the real optimal approach
b) Make the processes smaller (eg switch to thttpd from www.acme.com)
c) Speed up the I/O throughput relative to CPU speed
- eg the 2.2 IDE UDMA patches
d)Reduce the number of Apache processes so they fit nicely in RAM
e)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
I'm fairly sure it is the file buffers as the apache is already
reniced to 20, it is got max 50 processes and each of processes is
limited to like 1.5mb of size via ulimit.
nice wont help you, it controls scheduling
> > b) Make the processes smaller (eg switch to thttpd from www.acme.com)
> > c) Speed up the I/O throughput relative to CPU speed
> > - eg the 2.2 IDE UDMA patches
>
> can you elaborate on the "c" point" perhaps I could try it together with
> 2.2.20pre6 until I can do a).
>
> about b)
> 2.2.19+ do make slightly better decisions on the VM front, but at the end of
> the day swapping only works usefully when the working set still fits in
> RAM (ie all the stuff you keep needing).
> a)Add more RAM - that is the real optimal approach
> b)Make the processes smaller (eg
> I'm fairly sure it is the file buffers as the apache is already
> reniced to 20, it is got max 50 processes and each of processes is
> limited to like 1.5mb of size via ulimit.
nice wont help you, it controls scheduling priority. Similar a ulimit just
ensures that no apache
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:08:15AM -0500, Adam wrote:
>
> hello,
> I have question. I have box with kernel 2.2.17pre15
upgrade to 2.2.19 or 2.2.20pre
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
hello,
I have question. I have box with kernel 2.2.17pre15
and 128mb memory.
now on this box I have apache server which is serving 205 mb
of data.
AFAICT this casues all current processes swapped out every
so often in favor of putting all data to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:08:15AM -0500, Adam wrote:
hello,
I have question. I have box with kernel 2.2.17pre15
upgrade to 2.2.19 or 2.2.20pre
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
I'm fairly sure it is the file buffers as the apache is already
reniced to 20, it is got max 50 processes and each of processes is
limited to like 1.5mb of size via ulimit.
nice wont help you, it controls scheduling priority. Similar a ulimit just
ensures that no apache
2.2.19+ do make slightly better decisions on the VM front, but at the end of
the day swapping only works usefully when the working set still fits in
RAM (ie all the stuff you keep needing).
a)Add more RAM - that is the real optimal approach
b)Make the processes smaller (eg switch to
b) Make the processes smaller (eg switch to thttpd from www.acme.com)
c) Speed up the I/O throughput relative to CPU speed
- eg the 2.2 IDE UDMA patches
can you elaborate on the c point perhaps I could try it together with
2.2.20pre6 until I can do a).
about b) would it really
13 matches
Mail list logo
