On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please try the attached patch on top of latest Rik's patch?
> >
> > Sure thing.. (few minutes later) no change.
>
> That's because your probl
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > Could you please try the attached patch on top of latest Rik's patch?
>
> Sure thing.. (few minutes later) no change.
That's because your problem requires a change to the
balancing between swap_out() an
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Something else I see while watching
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more swapout than
> > > > swapin. Does that
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more swapout than
> > > swapin. Does that mean we're sending pages to swap only to find out
> > > that
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more swapout than
> > swapin. Does that mean we're sending pages to swap only to find out
> > that we never need them again?
>
> (numbers might be more
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> > This change makes my box swap madly under load. It appears to be
> > keeping more cache around than is really needed, and
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more swapout than
> swapin. Does that mean we're sending pages to swap only to find out
> that we never need them again?
(numbers might be more descriptive)
user : 0:07:21.70 54.3% page in :
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This change makes my box swap madly under load
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> This change makes my box swap madly under load. It appears to be
> keeping more cache around than is really needed, and therefore
> having to resort to swap instead. The result is
Hello Rik , As an aside to the below conversation .
Is there a URL/doc/... that gives basic tuning examples
for various types workloads ? Tia , JimL
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
...snip...
> > It's still reluctant to shrink cache. I'm hitting I/O saturati
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > This change makes my box swap madly under load.
> > >
> > > Swapped out pages were not being counte
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > This change makes my box swap madly under load.
> >
> > Swapped out pages were not being counted in the flushing limitation.
> >
> > Could you try the
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > This change makes my box swap madly under load.
>
> Swapped out pages were not being counted in the flushing limitation.
>
> Could you try the following patch?
Marcelo's patch should do the trick wr
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Rik,
>
> This change makes my box swap madly under load. It appears to be
> keeping more cache around than is really needed, and therefore
> having to resort to swap instead. The result is MUCH more I/O than
> previous kernels while doing the sa
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
> >
> > 2.4.1-ac7
> > o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> > | This should make things feel a lot faster especially
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I just tested ac8.
>
> If I run this test, the system gets really slow. It takes about
> a second between the time I press a key, and the time it appears
> on the screen. The load goes way up. Everything seems to block.
I'm sorry, but ... what test ?
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 08:12:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
> >
> > 2.4.1-ac7
> > o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> > | This should make things feel a l
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Torben Mathiasen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
> > >
> > > 2.4.1-ac7
> > > o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> > > |
On Thu, Feb 08 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
> >
> > 2.4.1-ac7
> > o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> > | This should make things feel a lot faster especially
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
>
> 2.4.1-ac7
> o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
> | This should make things feel a lot faster especially
> | on small boxes .. feedback to Rik
I'd
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Thanks, I hoped it would ;-) It's amazing what happens when you have a bcopy
> in assembly that's missing the source address initialization :-(
Yes! The output from the description of my SCSI hds when the driver
initialised was highly amusing (containing
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> two mistakes:
>
> a) [EMAIL PROTECTED], not veritas.com! (it was pine, not me -- default
> domain etc :)
>
> b) it was ac6 which fixed it, not ac7 (but I am running ac7)
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> > Doug,
> >
> > I confirm that ac7 fixed all
At 19:33 08/02/01, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > I confirm that ac7 fixed all the aic7xxx problems on my machine.
me,too (-:
AHA2940UW dual channel adapter (on board a SMP Tyan Thunder Pro 100 GX440
mobo).
-ac5 crashed on boot at SCSI init.
-ac6 unteste
Doug,
I confirm that ac7 fixed all the aic7xxx problems on my machine.
Thanks,
Tigran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
two mistakes:
a) [EMAIL PROTECTED], not veritas.com! (it was pine, not me -- default
domain etc :)
b) it was ac6 which fixed it, not ac7 (but I am running ac7)
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I confirm that ac7 fixed all the aic7xxx problems on my machine.
>
> Thanks,
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
2.4.1-ac7
o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
| This should make things feel a lot faster especially
| on small boxes .. feedback to Rik
o Silence osf syscall error printk
27 matches
Mail list logo
