From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:26:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200206191326.47329.roy@karlsbakk.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D0F8D40.2FC13433@zip.com.au>
> Roy, all we know is that "nuke-buffers stops your machine from locking up".
> But we don't know why your machine locks up in the first place. This just
> isn't sufficient grounds to apply it! We need to know exactly why your
> kernel is failing. We don't know what the bug is.
The bug, as previously described, occurs when multiple (20+) clients downloads
large files (3-6Gigs each) at a speed of ~5Mbps. The error does _not_ occur
when a fewer number of clients are downloading at speeds close to disk speed.
All testing is being done on gigE crossover.
> You have two gigabytes of RAM, yes? It's very weird that stripping buffers
> prevents a lockup on a machine with such a small highmem/lowmem ratio.
No. I have 1GB - highmem (which is disabled) giving me ~900MB
> I'll have yet another shot at reproducing it. So, again, could you please
> tell me *exactly*, in great deatail, what I need to do to reproduce this
> problem?
> - memory size
1GB - highmem
> - number of CPUs
1 Athlon 1133Mz, 256kB cache
> - IO system
standard 33MHz/32bit single peer PCI motherboard (SiS based)
on-board SiS IDE/ATA 100 controller.
promise 20269 controller
realtek 100mbps nic
e1000 gigE nic
4 IBM 40gig 120GXP drives - one on each IDE channel
data partition on RAID-0 across all drives
> - kernel version, any applied patches, compiler version
kernel 2.4.19-pre8+tux+akpm buffer patch
I have tried _many_ different kernels, and as I needed the 20269 support, I
chose 2.4.19-pre, Tux is there as I did some testing with that. The problem
is _not_ tux specific, as I've tried with other server software (custom or
standard) as well.
gcc2.95.3
> - exact sequence of commands
start http server software
start 20+ downloads. each downloaded file is 3-6 gigs
after some time most processes are killed OOM
> - anything else you can think of
I have not tried to give it coffee yet, although that might help. I'm usually
pretty pissed if I haven't got my morning coffee
> Have you been able to reproduce the failure on any other machine?
yes. I have set up one other machine with exact same setup and one with
slightly different setup and reproduced it.
> No, not at all. All the pagecache is still there - the patch just
> throws away the buffer_heads which are attached to those pagecache
> pages.
oh. that's good.
> The 2.5 kernel does it tons better. Have you tried it?
I haven't. I've tried to compile it a few times, but it has failed. And. I
don't want to run 2.5 on a production server.
But - If you ask me to test it, I will
thanks for all help
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-19 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-23 13:11 [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 14:54 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-23 16:29 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 16:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 10:04 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-24 14:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 19:32 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-30 10:29 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-30 19:28 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-31 16:56 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-31 18:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-06-18 11:26 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-06-18 19:42 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-19 11:26 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk [this message]
2002-07-10 7:50 ` [2.4 BUFFERING BUG] (was [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again) Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-07-10 8:05 ` Andrew Morton
2002-07-10 8:14 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-28 9:28 ` [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-28 15:30 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-29 8:00 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-29 13:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-30 9:21 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-30 17:19 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-30 18:49 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-24 15:11 ` [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Alan Cox
2002-05-24 15:53 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 16:14 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-24 16:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 17:30 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 17:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 18:03 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 18:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 18:29 ` 2.4 Kernel Perf discussion [Was Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again] Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 19:01 ` Stephen Frost
2002-05-27 9:24 ` [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Marco Colombo
2002-05-27 22:24 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-27 23:08 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-27 11:12 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-27 14:31 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-27 13:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 16:03 ` Johannes Erdfelt
2002-05-23 16:33 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 22:50 ` Luigi Genoni
2002-05-24 11:53 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 18:12 ` jlnance
2002-05-24 10:36 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-31 21:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-06-01 12:36 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
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=200206191326.47329.roy@karlsbakk.net \
--to=roy@karlsbakk.net \
--cc=Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).