https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User jeffm@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c1 Jeff Mahoney changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kernel-maintainers@forge.provo.novell.com |jeffm@novell.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jeff Mahoney 2008-08-08 11:31:13 MDT --- I'm not sure what you're asking here. The kernel *will* use all available memory for caching, but it doesn't do speculative caching beyond a bit of readahead. Pick a large directory and do "find . -type f -exec cat {} \; > /dev/null" or even just do an ls -lR on a huge directory tree and you'll find that most of your memory gets used. If that's not the case, then something is wrong with the VM tuning on your machine. It really sounds like your file server is just underutilized. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c3 Scott Couston changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au Platform|x86-64 |i386 --- Comment #3 from Scott Couston 2008-08-10 15:34:16 MDT --- In the attached you can see a maxed out CPU for almost 30 sec and NO more RAM veing assigned to anything, lest of all read a head or cache or................................................................... Please clarify if this is not bug or enhancemet...scott -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c5 Scott Couston changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Info Provider|alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au | --- Comment #5 from Scott Couston 2008-08-10 21:29:40 MDT --- Created an attachment (id=232606) --> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=232606) Info as requested - self titled - sorry the ? not a comd option - trust this is what you require - Can perform tests on offline X-64 CPU if you want - the I386 is production cannot destroy it much. I just wanted to say for the record I would be extremely hesitant to ever open any type of Kernel issue and it has taken me 6 month to decide if I am a nut case in my thoughts and observations. I do appreciate however the XENIX/UNIX/LINUX true multitasking of files serving and processing in background and foreground processors - Its beings only requiring dumb terminals due to its ability to perform all tasks above. I appreciate the adaptations to utilize an I386 CPU form the original Alpha or RISC CPU's. I also understand Netware in its primarily file serving duties and processing only occurs via a NLM. Netware almost identically mimics a Main Frame O/S and I started in I.T 26 years ago as a TPF/DB DBA and moved to get my CNE/CNI in Netware up to V6. I have been pondering why the current Kernel appears to offer no dynamically allocated resources of physical RAM when CPU Processing remains high and constant So here we are hope I can help, but if I do not understand anything I will ask....I am not a complete meat head yet...;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c6 --- Comment #6 from Scott Couston 2008-08-19 19:32:58 MDT --- Do you wish clone for I386 X64 Hardware a have verified as same issue in X64 - Install- Had to be destroyed at some time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User jeffm@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c7 --- Comment #7 from Jeff Mahoney 2008-08-25 13:30:17 MDT --- *** Bug 419811 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User chrubis@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c9 Cyril Hrubis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com |jeffm@novell.com Severity|Enhancement |Normal --- Comment #9 from Cyril Hrubis 2008-09-04 07:27:19 MDT --- As I'm not expert on linux caching algorithms so I would like kernel experts to decide this bug severity. Moving severity to normal and sending back to Jeff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User jeffm@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c11 Jeff Mahoney changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Info Provider| |alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au --- Comment #11 from Jeff Mahoney 2008-09-20 18:15:09 MDT --- Your understanding of how the kernel works is incorrect. If it were correct, we would have certainly heard more complaints than a lone bug report. We have deployed systems on i386 with 32 GB of RAM installed. It works. Really. You haven't described your workload at all. The following bit of code will peg your CPU at 100% and not use ANY additional memory. High CPU load without corresponding memory usage isn't an indication of poor caching performance. What program are you using to generate the graph you provided? Notably, the term "user memory" sticks out. It makes me think it's only paying attention to memory used by processes, not by caches. What's the output of "free" when you're running your test? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User jeffm@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c13 --- Comment #13 from Jeff Mahoney 2008-09-21 00:05:47 MDT --- Well, I thought I did. I just want the output of "free" while you're running your test. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User jeffm@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c15 Jeff Mahoney changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #15 from Jeff Mahoney 2008-09-21 16:47:59 MDT --- 1. Flush ALL Dirty Cache Buffers 2. Flush ALL Dirty Application RAM allocation 3. Flush ALL Dirty System RAM allocation There aren't different commands for this. "sync" will flush dirty buffers to disk. "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" will drop all caches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344 User alpha096@virginbroadband.com.au added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415344#c17 Scott Couston changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #17 from Scott Couston 2008-09-30 07:56:47 MDT --- REPLACED BY BUG #430913 - DETAILS ARE BUG #430913 States In Bug #415344 I made a request to change the poor allocations of buffers following prolonged CPU Max at 100%, by the Kernel. Although the Bug was Assigned, I felt that the real job of the Kernel was to maintain 1 amount of contiguous amount of registers - all directly addressable. The Kernel at present, does make some efforts, but to a greater lesser value. Rather than re-invert the wheel, why don't we change default KDE installation called 'quicklauncher' and Quick Launcher 2.0 [using KDE 3.5.9 release 49.1 openSUSE11.0) in Main OO System] by dwayne@translate.org.za I am use the version for KDE3 Desktop however there is a KDE4 Desktop. This dynamically provides applications and issues warning, which are NOT IN FOCUS, with far amounts of the actual applications be stored in RAM - with an enormous speed benefit. This Request is to add the KDE3 and KDE4 'Quicklauncher' to the basic install package/applet and you probably write a quick bit of code something like After boot has completed and before kwin 'IF physical RAM <== 2048 THEN ADD else skip to' The Quicklaucher has very good dynamic allocation of both RAM and numbers of Apps and is user configurable ENDS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.