On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 17:39 -0500, Perrin Harkins wrote: > > Thanks for pursuing that issue at the linux kernel list, Richard. As you > > have suggested it doesn't look very good. > > I want to add my thanks too.
You are welcome. I wish I wasn't the bearer of such bad news tho. > Or on anything at all, since the size measurements they use include > things that really shouldn't be counted as part of the process size. > > It seems that to tune properly you would need to send in requests with a > benchmarking tool and keep adjusting MaxClients upward while watching > the free memory on the box. That's really ugly. Maybe there's a way to > count memory used by each process slowly but accurately which we could > use during tuning at least. > > - Perrin That is an ugly way, but probably the only way we have at this time. I received further information on the linux kernel mailing list. Basically we can apply a 'patch', okay, a *hack* that is very unlikely to ever end up in the vanilla kernel and start maintaining it. The way I see it, unless we patch/hack the kernel to count the information we are interested in, we are SOL. If we do add it, expect a significant performance hit and don't expect it to be in the vanilla kernel. I am going to *try* and take the code sample I was given and wedge it into the right place on a machine sometime this week. If it works, I'll let you know. Maybe we can convince someone on lkml that if we make a way to turn this *feature* on or off with a sysctl and put it somewhere else in /proc/<pid/* that they'll put it in the vanilla kernel. Then someone with more of a clue than I have can maintain it :) Best, Richard -- Richard F. Rebel cat /dev/null > `tty`
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
