RE: tcp stack tuning and Checkpoint FW1 & Legato Networker

> > I want to set the tcp_keepalive timer to 60 seconds and understand > possible implications for Linux. echo 60 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

> > Nobody has answered a basic concern: > Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? The answer could be as simple as the fact that Linux might be trying to write to the exact memory location that is bad but Win2k has not. It might also be that he in fact DOES have problems with win2k but is una

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

> From: Alessandro Motter Ren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Which filesystem are you using on this machine? > []s. > ext2fs on the production farm but I also have a pair of machines (SMB P-III 800) using reiserfs on mail spools. That pair of machines is not particularly busy, thoug

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Running 2.4.6-

RE: The Joy of Forking

> YHBT. Evidently so. - 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/

RE: The Joy of Forking

> no SMP > x86 only (and similar, e.g. Crusoe) Never - 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/l

RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements

I ran some more tests yesterday with a little more RAM than last time and Rik's kernel performed much better than the vanilla kernel in the face of memory pressure when it was very busy. I could get both kernels into situations where they were unresponsive but these periods of time were much s

RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements

Ok, new test. Apache, no keepalives. 85 requests/sec for a 10K file 128MB of RAM Processor is UP 700MHz Intel vanilla 2.4.6-pre2 After everything settles down I have about 230-250 apache process running. about 4% of CPU in user and roughly 6% in system. Top shows: 18:12:47 up 59 min, 2 user

RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements

My bad, I just looked at my notes again. It both went away and returned with right around 500 processes. - 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 Pleas

RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements

> > That sounds like the machine just gets a working set > larger than the amount of available memory. It should > work better with eg. 96, 128 or more MBs of memory. Now that I think about it a little more ... once I took it out of the balancer and I got control back, I had over 500 apache kids

RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements

> > That sounds like the machine just gets a working set > larger than the amount of available memory. It should > work better with eg. 96, 128 or more MBs of memory. > Right, I run them with 256M ... thought I would try to squeeze it a bit to see what broke. - To unsubscribe from this list: sen

RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements

> > This patch has given excellent results on my laptop and my > workstation here and seems to improve kernel behaviour in tests > quite a bit. I can play mp3's unbuffered during moderate write > loads or moderately heavy IO ;) > > YMMV, please test it. If it works great for everybody I'd like > t

2.4.6-pre1 unresolved symbols

depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/2.4.6-pre1/kernel/drivers/net/3c59x.o depmod: do_softirq depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/2.4.6-pre1/kernel/drivers/net/bonding.o depmod: do_softirq depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/2.4.6-pre1/kernel/driver

RE: [OFF-TOPIC] 4 ports ETH cards

> I've been working with these boards for a couple months and thought they > were great. However, now it turns out that they won't fit into our > systems too well (a little too long). Does anyone have knowledge of > another brand that has a (slightly) smaller form factor? I did some > checking

Crusoe math performance?

So I am fooling around with one of these things: processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineTMx86 cpu family : 5 model : 4 model name : Transmeta(tm) Crusoe(tm) Processor TM5600 stepping: 3 cpu MHz : 533.348 cache size : 512 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_b

Subjective 2.4.4 performance report

I will know better when the load ramps up next week but 2.4.4 (with Al Viro's prune_icache() patch) just seems to "feel" better than the previous 2.4 kernels did. This is a UP Pentium-III with 256MB RAM used as a web server with about 100 connections open as I write this and serving about 50 reque

RE: 2.4 stable when?

vmstat and top -i info if anyone is curious. It does not touch swap, though. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of George Bonser > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:39 AM > To: Rik van Riel > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Su

RE: 2.4 stable when?

> > > Is there any information that would be helpful to the kernel > > developers that I might be able to provide or is this a known issue > > that is currently being worked out? > > I never heard about this problem. What would be helpful is to > send a few minutes' (a full 'load cycle'?) worth o

RE: Disorder?

> > What kernel are you running? That is 2.4.4-pre3 > This is disabled by default. search for > where FASTRETRANS_DEBUG is enabled (should be in linux/include/net/tcp.h > and set it someting low (like 1 which is the default. The actual error > message comes up in tcp_input.c (search fro FASTRE

Disorder?

What's all this in syslog? I don't remember ever seeing it there before. ... Apr 14 13:58:31 foo kernel: Disorder0 3 5 f0 s2 rr1 Apr 14 13:58:32 foo kernel: Disorder0 3 5 f0 s1 rr1 Apr 14 13:58:41 foo kernel: Disorder0 3 8 f0 s0 rr1 Apr 14 13:58:44 foo kernel: Disorder0 3 5 f0 s0 rr1 Apr 14 13:58

2.4 stable when?

I have a web server farm that right now has about 125 apache processes running per machine. If I try to use 2.4.3 or even 2.4.3-ac6 it will go to about 400 (meaning it is slow in clearing connections), the load average will start to climb until it gets to close to 100 and then stops responding. It

2.4.4-pre2 nbd compile error

gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/local/src/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O 2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary =2 -march=i686 -DMODULE -DMODVERSIONS -include /usr/local/src/linux/include/linux/modversions.h -c -o nbd.o nbd.c nbd.c: In function `nbd_send

RE: New directions for kernel development

So according to the below, Linux development should be considered an environmental hazard? Maybe it is in the best interest of Planet Earth that we should provide some safe place, possibly some South Pacific island, where we could set up a quarrantine camp for hardcore linux developers. All of th

2.4.3 aic7xxx nevermind

I grabbed a complete 2.4.3 tarball and that seems to have fixed the problem. Something must have gotten borked in the patching process somewhere. And the sad part is that I know to do that before posting ... :-( - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the

2.4.3 aic7xxx wont compile

Just tried to build 2.4.3, got: make[6]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm' gcc -I/usr/include -ldb1 aicasm_gram.c aicasm_scan.c aicasm.c aicasm_symbol.c -o aicasm aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:45: ../queue.h: No such file or directory aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:50: aicasm.h: