[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1169229461.6197.154.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:57:41 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, pj@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: fix congestion control
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 09:20 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * NFS congestion size, scale with available memory.
> > + *
>
> Well this all depends on the memory available to the running process.
> If the process is just allowed to allocate from a subset of memory
> (cpusets) then this may need to be lower.
>
> > + * 64MB: 8192k
> > + * 128MB: 11585k
> > + * 256MB: 16384k
> > + * 512MB: 23170k
> > + * 1GB: 32768k
> > + * 2GB: 46340k
> > + * 4GB: 65536k
> > + * 8GB: 92681k
> > + * 16GB: 131072k
>
> Hmmm... lets say we have the worst case of an 8TB IA64 system with 1k
> nodes of 8G each.
Eeuh, right. Glad to have you around to remind how puny my boxens
are :-)
> On Ia64 the number of pages is 8TB/16KB pagesize = 512
> million pages. Thus nfs_congestion_size is 724064 pages which is
> 11.1Gbytes?
>
> If we now restrict a cpuset to a single node then have a
> nfs_congestion_size of 11.1G vs an available memory on a node of 8G.
Right, perhaps cap this to a max of 256M. That would allow 128 2M RPC
transfers, much more would not be needed I guess. Trond?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists