Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:02:33 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates and debug.max_softdeps Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9912301650520.9644-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <19991231004902.01D721CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: > FYI: On hub.freebsd.org (the freebsd mailing list server), if we activate > softupdates on the disk containing the postfix spool, the machine reboots > (silently if I recall correctly) within 5 minutes of postfix starting up. > > This is a much smaller system of course, with smaller memory and filesystem > working set. (postfix spool of ~50-80MB, 256MB ram). I thought I'd post > this as a real-use datapoint. That is interesting. So I guess the conclusion to this is, softupdates is useful for bursty IO, but not sustained because it can get far behind until it eventually reaches the point where the machine reboots silently. I guess the delay until reboot is dependent on the size of max_softdeps. If it is big, it takes a while. I still think that the default value of max_softdeps might be too big for the kernel memory space. > -- > Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au > Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9912301650520.9644-100000>