Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:16:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:16:38 -0500 Received: from p188.usnyc5.stsn.com ([199.106.220.188]:18951 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:16:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:33:15 -0300 (EST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: cc: Magnus Walldal , Subject: Re: 2.4.1 under heavy network load - more info In-Reply-To: <200102211807.VAA16020@ms2.inr.ac.ru> 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 Wed, 21 Feb 2001 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > > I raised the numbers a little bit more. Now with 128MB RAM in the box we can > > handle a maximum of 7000 connections. No more because we start to swap too > > much. > > Really? Well, it is unlikely to have something with net. > Your dumps show that at 6000 connections networking eated less > than 10MB of memory. Probably, swapping is mistuned. In that case, could I see some vmstat (and/or top) output of when the kernel is no longer able to keep up, or maybe even a way I could reproduce these things at the office ? I'm really interested in things which make Linux 2.4 break performance-wise since I'd like to have them fixed before the distributions start shipping 2.4 as default. regards, Rik -- 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.br/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/