On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:07:43PM +0200, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
>
>> Firstly, I see a periodic(8) job that DOES use find -sx, which means
>> your attempt to track it down was faulty, and your syntax should have
>> been "find -sx /" not "find / -sx". See here:
>>
>> /etc/periodic/security/100.chksetui
Firstly, I see a periodic(8) job that DOES use find -sx, which means
your attempt to track it down was faulty, and your syntax should have
been "find -sx /" not "find / -sx". See here:
/etc/periodic/security/100.chksetuid: find -sx $MP /dev/null -type f \
Thanks for clearing that out. :-)
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:43:39AM +0200, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
>
If find / -sx is running and is consuming all CPU, what is the
value of vfs.ufs.dirhash_mem:
# sysctl -a | grep dirhash
>>> shopzeus# sysctl -a | grep dirhash
>>> vfs.ufs.dirhash_docheck: 0
>>> vfs.uf
Thank you very much! Probably you are right. Our users use shared IMAP
folders and sometimes they keep ten thousands of messages in one
folder. I have increased dirhash_maxmem to 64MB and see what happens.
Unfortunately, I cannot play with the hardware because it is in a
server park, and
If find / -sx is running and is consuming all CPU, what is the value of
vfs.ufs.dirhash_mem:
# sysctl -a | grep dirhash
shopzeus# sysctl -a | grep dirhash
vfs.ufs.dirhash_docheck: 0
vfs.ufs.dirhash_mem: 2095818
vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem: 2097152
vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize: 2560
Ma
