From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:39:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:38:52 -0400 Received: from sportingbet.gw.dircon.net ([195.157.147.30]:50441 "HELO sysadmin.sportingbet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:38:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:33:03 +0100 From: Sean Hunter To: Adam Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.2.x series and mm Message-ID: <20010628083303.A27891@dev.sportingbet.com> Mail-Followup-To: Sean Hunter , Adam , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:27:11PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > I'm fairly sure it is the file buffers as the apache is already > > reniced to 20, it is got max 50 processes and each of processes is > > limited to like 1.5mb of size via ulimit. > > nice wont help you, it controls scheduling priority. Similar a ulimit just > ensures that no apache process goes mad and eats lots of memory (good idea > but not helpful here). If your working set (and thats the bit the matters) > really is exceeding memory by a fair bit then > > a) Add more RAM - that is the real optimal approach > b) Make the processes smaller (eg switch to thttpd from www.acme.com) > c) Speed up the I/O throughput relative to CPU speed > - eg the 2.2 IDE UDMA patches It may also be worth considering d) Reduce the number of Apache processes so they fit nicely in RAM Sean