Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 14:23:58 +0100 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
<linux-kernel@alex.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:10 PM +0200 Stephan von Krawczynski 
> <skraw@ithnet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Obviously aging did not work at all,
> > there was not a single hit on these (CD image) pages during 24 hours,
> > compared to lots on the nfs-data.
> 
> If there's no memory pressure, data stays in InactiveDirty, caches,
> etc., forever. What makes you think more memory would have helped
> the NFS performance? It's possible these all were served out of caches
> too.

Negative. Switching off export-option "no_subtree_check" (which basically leads
to more small allocs during nfs action) shows immediately mem failures and
truncated files on the server and stale nfs handles on the client. So the
system _is_ under pressure. This exactly made me start (my branch of) the
discussion.
Besides I would really like to know what useable _data_ is in these pages, as I
cannot see which application should hold it (the CD stuff was quit "long ago").
FS should have sync'ed several times, too. 

Stephan