[LSF/VM TOPIC] Dynamic sizing of dirty_limit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  Hi,

  one more suggestion for discussion:
Currently, the amount of dirtiable memory is fixed - either to a percentage
of ram (dirty_limit) or to a fix number of megabytes. The problem with this
is that if you have application doing random writes on a file (like some
simple databases do), you'll get a big performance improvement if you
increase the amount of dirtiable memory (because you safe quite some
rewrites and also get larger chunks of sequential IO) (*)
On the other hand for sequential IO increasing dirtiable memory (beyond
certain level) does not really help - you end up doing the same IO.  So for
a machine is doing sequential IO, having 10% of memory dirtiable is just
fine (and you probably don't want much more because the memory is better
used for something else), when a machine does random rewrites, going to 40%
might be well worth it. So I'd like to discuss how we could measure that
increasing amount of dirtiable memory helps so that we could implement
dynamic sizing of it.

(*) We ended up increasing dirty_limit in SLES 11 to 40% as it used to be
with old kernels because customers running e.g. LDAP (using BerkelyDB
heavily) were complaining about performance problems.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]