2.4.8 vs 2.4.7 observations on loaded web server

• Next message: Kurt Roeckx: "system freeze with 2.4.8."
• Previous message: christophe barbé: "Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

  Hello,
I have a machine that's loaded web server (600-800 req/sec), that
pushes 35-55 mbits/s traffic. It runs good on 2.4.7 , with
loadavg between 3 and 5, and because of the different opinions
about 2.4.8 VM and stuff, tried that too. The result was not good.
Observing /proc/meminfo, the active memory was a lot more -
about 500MM ( under 2.4.7 it's about 240MB), it ate all the swap
(the machine has 1G ram and 200 MB swap), and was working somewhat
worse.
Hope this observation helps, if anyone has any questions, feel free
to mail me :)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Kurt Roeckx: "system freeze with 2.4.8."
• Previous message: christophe barbé: "Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:15 EST