On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Jan Harkes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> > > nice and slowly. For example, 250 Meg of inode cache will handle 2
> > > million inodes with no thrashing at all.
> >
> > What inode cache are you talking about? According to the slabinfo output
> > on my machine every inode takes up 480 bytes in the inode_cache slab. So
> > 250MB is only able to hold about half a million inodes in memory.
>
> Sorry, I was a little loose with terminology there. I should have
> said "inode blocks in cache". The inode cache is related. When an
> Ext2 inode is pushed out of the inode cache it gets transfered to a
> dirty block in memory, where it shrinks to 128 bytes and shares the
> block with 31 other inodes. These blocks are in the buffer cache, and
> this is the cache I'm talking about.
Hmmm, considering this, it may be wise to limit the amount of
inodes in the inode cache to, say, 10% of RAM ... because we
can cache MORE inodes if we store them in the buffer cache
instead!
regards,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
