On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 06:52:24PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Its #678102, which you are on the cc list of. It probably needs a RHEL5 > bug as well. Bryn posted a patch to it to make the change, but I'm not > sure of the current status. I'm copying in Dave Teigland so that he can > comment on the current status. > > > > 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. I'd suggest applying Bryn's vmalloc patch, and trying a higher value to see if it has any effect. If it does, we can certainly get that patch and larger default values queued up for various releases. Thanks, Dave -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
