From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:03:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:03:13 -0400 Received: from beasley.gator.com ([63.197.87.202]:274 "EHLO beasley.gator.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:03:01 -0400 From: "George Bonser" To: "Rik van Riel" Cc: , Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:06:09 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > That sounds like the machine just gets a working set > larger than the amount of available memory. It should > work better with eg. 96, 128 or more MBs of memory. Now that I think about it a little more ... once I took it out of the balancer and I got control back, I had over 500 apache kids alive and it was responsive. Also, when top -q starting giving out, it was still updating the screen though it started getting slower and slower ... at that point I only had MAYBE 300 apache processes. It almost felt like the system could not catch up as fast as the new connections were arriving. Lets say it "goes dead" at about 300 or so connections, I let it run for a while then take it out of the rotation and it "comes back" and shows me it has about 500 processes and its interactive response is fine and it is only about 100MB into swap. It just feels like it can't get out of its own way fast enough.