Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262498AbTIPVPQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:15:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262499AbTIPVPQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:15:16 -0400 Received: from mikonos.cyclades.com.br ([200.230.227.67]:52490 "EHLO firewall.cyclades.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262498AbTIPVPK (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:15:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:16:58 -0300 (BRT) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Olivier Galibert cc: Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , Stephan von Krawczynski , Marcelo Tosatti , , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: experiences beyond 4 GB RAM with 2.4.22 In-Reply-To: <20030916195345.GB68728@dspnet.fr.eu.org> 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 Content-Length: 1865 Lines: 49 On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:10:57PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > Well, I do understand the bounce buffer problem, but honestly the current way > > > > of handling the situation seems questionable at least. If you ever tried such a > > > > system you notice it is a lot worse than just dumping the additional ram above > > > > 4GB. You can really watch your network connections go bogus which is just > > > > unacceptable. Is there any thinkable way to ommit the bounce buffers and still > > > > do something useful with the beyond-4GB ram parts? > > > > > > The 2.6 tree is somewhat better about this but at the end of the day if > > > your I/O subsystem can't do the job your box will not perform ideally. > > > For some workloads its a huge win to have the extra RAM, for others the > > > I/O is a real pain. > > > > If he has trouble logging in, then there's a bug somewhere. > > Bounce buffers should not slow machine down more than > > 2x, and from his description it looks like way worse slowdown. > > The box does not just slowdown, the box crawls on the floor wimpering. > Nothing works except ping until the i/os are finished (and they seem > to crawl too), then everything works perfectly again. > > We're quite eager to fix the problem too, if you want us to test some > things. Which card and driver are you using for IO? 3ware? How much RAM do you have? I remember I tested heavy IO loads (heavy swapping and dbench) on 8GB machine and all worked fine (interactive terminal, etc) but that was a looong time ago back in 2.4. - 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/