From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id lBIM5I3F020394 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:05:20 -0800 Received: from sargon.lncsa.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B536049A8DC for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from sargon.lncsa.com (sargon.lncsa.com [212.99.8.251]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Fvgw5yqmV2qgFk4H for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:05:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47684404.6010809@lncsa.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:04:52 +0100 From: Laurent CARON MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Issue with 2.6.23 and drbd 8.0.7 References: <20071217143655.chiehahh@trusted.lncsa.com> <20071217220354.GU4396912@sgi.com> <4766F58C.8040000@lncsa.com> <20071217233759.GB4396912@sgi.com> <47678124.80906@lncsa.com> <20071218122900.GK4396912@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071218122900.GK4396912@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > Yes, XFS will use more memory - XFS's inodes are substantially larger > in memory than for reiserfs and so will consume more memory for the > same number of cached inodes. Hi, As a temporary workaround (while finishing tests on the x64 system), is there a way to decrease the amount of cached inodes to avoid such "crashes" ? Thanks