From: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu>
To: Josh Grebe <squash@primary.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:54:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010320135449.A24252@cs.cmu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200103190207.UAA13397@senechalle.net> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103201038140.2405-100000@scarface.primary.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103201038140.2405-100000@scarface.primary.net>; from squash@primary.net on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:01:52AM -0600
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:01:52AM -0600, Josh Grebe wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have a server farm made of identical hardware running pop3 and imap mail
> functions. recently, we upgraded all the machines to kernel 2.4.2, but we
> noticed that according to free, our memory utilization went way up. Here
> is the output of free on the 2.4.2 machine:
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 513192 492772 20420 0 1684 263188
> -/+ buffers/cache: 227900 285292
> Swap: 819304 540 818764
>
>
> On the 2.2..18 machine:
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 517256 351280 165976 19920 82820 186836
> -/+ buffers/cache: 81624 435632
> Swap: 819304 0 819304
>
>
> Doing the math, the 2.4 machine is using 44% of available memory, while
> the 2.2 is using only about 14%.
What does /proc/slabinfo report for the number of pages locked down in
the inode and dentry caches? My machine has pretty much every inode in
memory and is using close to 50% of my memory for these (214MB/512MB).
These caches do not seem to be counted towards 'reclaimable' memory by
the new VM and are only pruned when _all_ other attempts to free up
memory have failed.
This becomes very noticeable on a not very fast, small memory machine
(i.e. 48MB sparc-IPC), where 2.2 stays relatively snappy, but 2.4
becomes unusable after an updatedb run.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-20 18:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-19 2:07 /proc/cpuinfo for Intel P4 D850GB asenec
2001-03-19 2:33 ` davej
2001-03-19 3:14 ` 2.4.3-pre4: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000000fb Shawn Starr
2001-03-19 12:02 ` /proc/cpuinfo for Intel P4 D850GB David Weinehall
2001-03-19 21:58 ` 2.4.3-pre4: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000000fb Shawn Starr
2001-03-20 17:01 ` Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2 Josh Grebe
2001-03-20 17:32 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-20 20:29 ` Josh Grebe
2001-03-21 19:16 ` Jan Harkes
2001-03-21 19:54 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-20 18:54 ` Jan Harkes [this message]
2001-03-20 20:29 ` Josh Grebe
2001-03-20 22:18 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-20 22:29 ` Juha Saarinen
2001-03-21 9:28 ` Zou Min
2001-03-21 9:51 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-03-21 10:56 ` Zou Min
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-21 10:14 Manfred Spraul
2001-03-21 17:42 ` Josh Grebe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010320135449.A24252@cs.cmu.edu \
--to=jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=squash@primary.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox