Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:14 +0100, Alan Brown wrote:
Bob, Steve, Dave,
Is there any progress on tuning the size of the tables (RHEL5) to allow
larger values and see if they help things as far as caching goes?
There is a bz open,
I thought so, but I can't find it.
and you should ask for that to be linked to one of
your support cases, if it hasn't already been. I thought we'd concluded
though that this didn't actually affect your particular workload.
Increasing them to 4096 hasn't but larger numbers might.
It would be advantageous to tweak the dentry limits too - the kernel
limits this to 10% and attempts to increase are throttled back.
Yes, I've not forgotten this. I've been working on some similar issues
recently and I'll explore this more fully once I'm done with the
writeback side of things.
Do you have a BZ for this one?
This doesn't scale for larger memory sizes on fileservers and I think
it's a hangover from 4Gb ram days.
AB
Yes, it might well be, so we should certainly look into it. Again
though, please ensure that you raise this through support so that (a) it
doesn't get missed by accident and (b) that we are all in the loop. If
there are not tickets open for these, then we need to resolve that in
order to push this forward,
willdo.
Steve.
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
