Re: vm_dirty_ratio seems a bit large.

2005-03-18 Thread Andrew Morton
Robin Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, you could just extend them to understand fixed point. Keep > > printing integers as integers, print non-integers with one (or two: > > will we ever need 0.01% increments?) decimal places. > > Right now, it is possible to build our largest Altix c

Re: vm_dirty_ratio seems a bit large.

2005-03-18 Thread Robin Holt
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:27:31AM +1100, Peter Chubb wrote: > > "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew> Robin Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> One other issue we have is the vm_dirty_ratio and background_ratio > >> adjustments are a little coarse with these m

Re: vm_dirty_ratio seems a bit large.

2005-03-17 Thread Peter Chubb
> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew> Robin Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One other issue we have is the vm_dirty_ratio and background_ratio >> adjustments are a little coarse with these memory sizes. Since our >> minimum adjustment is 1%, we are adjusting by

Re: vm_dirty_ratio seems a bit large.

2005-03-17 Thread Andrew Morton
Robin Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew, > > We have some fairly large installations that are running into long > pauses while running fsync(). One of the issues that was noted is the > vm_dirty_ratio, while probably adequate for a desktop type installation, > seems excessively large for

vm_dirty_ratio seems a bit large.

2005-03-17 Thread Robin Holt
Andrew, We have some fairly large installations that are running into long pauses while running fsync(). One of the issues that was noted is the vm_dirty_ratio, while probably adequate for a desktop type installation, seems excessively large for a larger configuration. For your reference, the ma