xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Memory consumption

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Memory consumption
From: Tom Carroll <tcarroll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:38:53 -0400
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105241323410.1903-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:26:17PM -0500
References: <20010524134931.C30044@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105241323410.1903-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
The system:
SMP
IDE

2x750 MHz IA32
1GB RAM

ServerWorks IDE (osb4)
IBM 60GB ATA100

One drive.  Here's my partition map

major minor  #blocks  name

   3     0   60051600 hda    
   3     1      56196 hda1              ext2
   3     2    1052257 hda2              ext2
   3     3   58942485 hda3              LVM
  58     0    2097152 lvma              swap
  58     1   18874368 lvmb              xfs             
  58     2    4194304 lvmc              ext2
  58     3    2097152 lvmd              ext2
  58     4    4194304 lvme      xfs
  58     5   27484160 lvmf              xfs

On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:26:17PM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> A question to ask here is does type of hardware fit into this equation? As
> in :
> 
> SMP vs Uni
> SCSI vs IDE
> # of volumes/drives etc.
> 
> -- 
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-796-9023
> email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> On Thu, 24 May 2001, Tom Carroll wrote:
> 
> > It is not just a dump.  This behavior is evident within most
> > operations that touch the filesystem.
> >
> > Examples include compiling, untarring, samba, etc.
> >
> > -Tom Carroll
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:41:52PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > > Hey,
> > > >
> > > > I just compiled linux-2.4-xfs 24/05/2001 16:30 GMT.
> > > >
> > > > The large memory consumption issue still exists.  The previous
> > > > snapshot of /proc/slabinfo is accurate.
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions?
> > > >         Thanks in advance.
> > > >
> > > > -Tom Carroll
> > >
> > > OK, if the machine survives the failing dump process does the filesystem
> > > unmount afterwards? I will go an run some quick tests, but it smells of
> > > a reference count leak - dump uses a backdoor open function rather
> > > than pathnames, this is probably where the problem is.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>