Chris Mason wrote:
>
> On Thursday, February 01, 2001 02:16:43 PM -0200 Rik van Riel
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> About the system hanging completely, I wonder if it goes
>> away by pressing sysrq-S (sync all disks). If it does,
>> maybe Reiserfs was blocking all the pages in the inactive
My apologies...my internic data isn't updated, http://208.179.0.18/VM/
-d
--
There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and
talents. Thomas Jefferson
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Andrew S.
Tanenbaum
-
To unsubscr
Chris Mason wrote:
> Sorry, can't seem to resolve stuph.org. What is kreiserfsd doing during when the
>system is waiting for more ram? With JOURNAL_MAX_BATCH set to 100, kreiserfsd will
>end up responsible for sending log blocks/metadata to disk and freeing the pinned
>buffers.
>
> -chris
(
My apologies...my internic data isn't updated, http://208.179.0.18/VM/
-d
--
There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and
talents. Thomas Jefferson
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Andrew S.
Tanenbaum
-
To unsubscr
On Thursday, February 01, 2001 02:16:43 PM -0200 Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> About the system hanging completely, I wonder if it goes
> away by pressing sysrq-S (sync all disks). If it does,
> maybe Reiserfs was blocking all the pages in the inactive
> list from being written
On Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:02:46 PM -0800 David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Chris, changing JOURNAL_MAX_BATCH from 900 to 100 didn't affect
> anything).
>
> Ok, having approached this slightly more intelligently here are [better]
> results.
>
> The dumps are large so they are lo
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, David Ford wrote:
> The dumps are large so they are located at http://stuph.org/VM/.
I can't seem to resolve this domain ...
> Here's the story. I boot and startx, I load xmms and netscape
> to eat away memory. When free buffers/cache falls below 7M the
> system stalls an
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, David Ford wrote:
> Correct, the point of the matter is to find stress points. It
> will do the exact same thing when it reaches the end of swap.
> I suspect a relation to reiserfs fighting for buffers perhaps.
> This fight occurs a few megs before the OOM routine trips.
Correct, the point of the matter is to find stress points. It will do the exact
same thing when it reaches the end of swap. I suspect a relation to reiserfs
fighting for buffers perhaps. This fight occurs a few megs before the OOM
routine trips.
-d
Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gather this i
Hi,
Gather this is with no swap space allocated... And the question is why does
the oom handler not get triggered?
Ed Tomlinson
David Ford wrote:
> (Chris, changing JOURNAL_MAX_BATCH from 900 to 100 didn't affect
> anything).
>
> Ok, having approached this slightly more intelligently here a
10 matches
Mail list logo
