Since the poster didn't say otherwise, perhaps this test was performed
with buffermem/pagecache.min_percent set to their default values, which
IIRC add up to 13% of physical RAM (in fact that's PHYSICAL ram, not 13%
of available RAM). So take a 1024MB machine, with (say) roughly 16MB
used by the kernel and kernel-data. Then subtract 0.13*1024 (133MB !!)
and you're left with a paltry 875MB or so. (This assumes that the
poster had modified his kernel to handle the full 1024MB btw).
So in fact the cache/buffers probably weren't quite filled to their min.
values or swapping and poor performance would have set in even earlier
than they did (910MB).
It's worth taking note I suppose that Solaris *doesn't* have this
problem. It's probably not worth a kernel patch to fix the Linux
behaviour though; I just reset the values to more sane ones in rc.local.
Now let's see if Linux does any better with say 2% for each of the min
values...
Neil
PS: to Jean-Michel: in case you don't know what I mean (though I assume
you do), look at /proc/sys/vm/pagecache and buffermem, and
Documentation/sysctl/
PPS: I presume that the initial sluggishness of Solaris was due to it
throwing away some cache?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 16:49:30 +0100
> From: Jean-Michel VANSTEENE <Jean-Michel.Vansteene@bull.net>
> To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: SWAP: Linux far behind Solaris or I missed something
>
> I've made some tests to load a computer (1GB memory).
> A litle process starts eating 900 MB then slowly eats
> the remainder of the memory 1MB by 1MB and does a
> "data shake": 200,000 times a memcpy of 4000 bytes
> randomly choosen.
>
> I want to test the swap capability.
>
> Solaris was used under XWindow, Linux under text
> console... What do I forget to comfigure or tune?
> Don't let me with such bad values.......
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> I removed micro seconds displayed by my function
> after call to gettimeofday
>
> megs Solaris Linux
> ------------------------------------------------
> 901: 18 secs 9 secs
> 902: 11 secs 9 secs
> 903: 10 secs 9 secs
> 904: 9 secs 9 secs
> 905: 9 secs 9 secs
> 906: 9 secs 9 secs
> 907: 9 secs 9 secs
> 908: 9 secs 9 secs
> 909: 9 secs 9 secs
> 910: 9 secs 13 secs
> 911: 9 secs 17 secs
> 912: 9 secs 20 secs
> 913: 9 secs 24 secs
> 914: 9 secs 33 secs
> 915: 10 secs 44 secs
> 916: 9 secs 56 secs
> 917: 9 secs 65 secs
> 918: 9 secs 75 secs
> 919: 9 secs 81 secs
> 920: 9 secs 87 secs
> 921: 9 secs 96 secs
> 922: 9 secs 108 secs
> 923: 9 secs 122 secs
> 924: 9 secs 129 secs
> 925: 9 secs 142 secs
> 926: 9 secs 155 secs
> 927: 9 secs 161 secs
>
> 928 - 977 always 9 secs under solaris
>
> 978: 10 secs <stop testing>
> 979: 10 secs -------
> 980: 11 secs
> 981: 14 secs
> 982: 17 secs
> 983: 21 secs
> 984: 28 secs
> 985: 32 secs
> 986: 26 secs
> 987: 18 secs
> 988: 19 secs
> 989: 24 secs
> 990: 29 secs
> 991: 41 secs
> 992: 48 secs
> 993: 85 secs
> 994: 86 secs
> 995: 91 secs
> 996: 92 secs
> 997: 93 secs
> 998: 97 secs
> 999: 83 secs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/