From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jan 22 8:45:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F6814E1D for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:45:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com (p18-dnz02kiryunisiki.gunma.ocn.ne.jp [210.163.200.115]) by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) with ESMTP id BAA09459; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:45:22 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <3889DE7E.EE288D15@newsguy.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:44:46 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jaye Mathisen Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tweaking to enhance file-caching... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jaye Mathisen wrote: > > I have a box running that as much as possible, I would like the VM > system to favor caching writes and metadata over program run space... > > Meaning, say on a 64MB box, if a program needed 100MB's of memory, that > program would be forced to page/swap, while 32MB's of RAM (or whatever), > is still caching filesystem writes. > > Essentially, the memory priority needs to be on caching... > > Is this possible with 3.4? Why do you need that? FreeBSD doesn't really make any distinction between program and disk cache. It's the same thing, as far as we are concerned. Whatever gets most use stays in memory. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "2 b or not to b" meaning varies depending on whether one uses the 79 or the 83 standard. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message