From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 9 01:55:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB8837B401 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from solfertje.student.utwente.nl (solfertje.student.utwente.nl [130.89.167.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06C443FBF for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:55:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl) Received: from solfertje.student.utwente.nl (failways.internal [10.236.150.2]) by solfertje.student.utwente.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4627380; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:56:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:55:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Alban Hertroys To: me@farid-hajji.de In-Reply-To: <200307060029.00866.me@farid-hajji.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20030709085627.E4627380@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Weird vmstat -s stats X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alban Hertroys List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:55:20 -0000 On 6 Jul, Farid Hajji punched keys in this particular order: >> > "vmstat -s" shows on one of my boxes (uptime: 26 days): >> > >> > -1597015721 total name lookups >> > cache hits (101% pos + 0% neg) system 0% per-directory >> > deletions 0%, falsehits 0%, toolong 0% >> > >> > Weird. I'll have to cvsup again and hope this has been fixed :) >> >> I'm not seeing it on an up-to-date -STABLE. Of course, that doesn't >> mean much, because it looks like a counter wraparound. > > Of course it's a wraparound. I was not able to reproduce this > condition on newer -STABLE. It takes some weeks of uptime > and heavy use to reach this stage, unless you happen to know > how to increment the counter with a test program (I don't > know how). > > Shouldn't such counters be at least 64 bit wide? > > -Farid. It's a counter. Does a negative name lookup count mean anything? Is it's signedness useful for anything? Does it really need 64 bits? Just a few questions, as I don't really know anything about the subject, but I happen to know quite a bit (a byte?) about C... -- Alban Hertroys http://solfertje.student.utwente.nl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No, it's not a bug! It's a six-legged feature!