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 04:43:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:43:49 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:36365 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:43:41 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:43:37 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: George Bonser Cc: , Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, George Bonser wrote: > I took it out of the load balancer and regained control in > seconds. The 15 minute load average showed somewhere over 150 > with a bazillion apache processes. Even top -q would not update > when I put it back into the balancer. The load average and > number of processes started to increase until I got to some > point where it would just stop providing output. Again, control > returned within seconds after taking it out of the balancer. As > far as I could tell, I never at any time got more than 100MB > into swap. OK, I guess it's just thrashing. Having 64MB of RAM with 250 Apache processes will give you about 256kB per Apache process ... minus page table, TCP, etc... overhead. 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. regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/