From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262674AbUBZMYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:24:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262780AbUBZMYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:24:48 -0500 Received: from 64-186-161-006.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:60853 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262674AbUBZMYq (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:24:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:08:23 -0300 (BRT) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Christian Leber Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.25 - large inode_cache In-Reply-To: <20040226111912.GB4554@core.home> Message-ID: References: <20040226013313.GN29776@unthought.net> <20040226111912.GB4554@core.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Cyclades-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Cyclades-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Christian Leber wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:33:14AM +0100, Jakob Oestergaard wrote: > > Besides, after a few days of running, the machine will use about 100MB > > of memory for cache, 100MB for buffers, about 100MB for userspace, and > > the remaining 600-700 MB of memory for inode_cache and dentry_cache. > > I have the same problem (it's an dual PIII NFS fileserver with promise sx6000 > raid, 320 GB ext3 filesystem and only 512 MB Ram). > > After only 2 days running the bloatmeter output looks like: > inode_cache: 336585KB 357234KB 94.21 > dentry_cache: 50305KB 56523KB 88.99 > size-32: 1516KB 1695KB 89.46 > > free output is this: > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 515980 506464 9516 0 2272 19204 > -/+ buffers/cache: 484988 30992 > Swap: 1951856 7992 1943864 This should be normal behaviour -- the i/d caches grew because of file system activitity. This memory will be reclaimed in case theres pressure. Is the behaviour different from previous 2.4 or 2.6 kernels?