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


Hash: SHA1

Ragnar Wisloff wrote:
| Jonas Smedegaard skrev:

|> Let me put it differently: Do you recall the setup of those thin clients
|> stabilizing with NFS-swap enabled? Did they have 32MB ram or even less
|> than that? Did they use 10Mbit or 100Mbit NICs? PCI bus? Do you recall
|> the brand and name of the the machines?
| There were mostly old Dell recycled PCs. They varied wildy in spec, from
| P75/16MB RAM to P3s with 256 MB RAM. If you are coming to the Skolelinux
| developers meet at then end of the month, I can show you. The clients
| are at that school. The lab had stability problems, the symptoms were
| classic low-memory: clients would work for a while, then suddenly
| without warning "restart".

Thanks for the details. (I didn't actually need the thorough explanation
of kernel behaviour, but thanks for that too, anyway: others might find
it useful)

|> Off course, if you refer to "a whole bunch of different setups all
|> behaving exactly the same" then my question is irrelevant - but that
|> info is indeed relevant (so that I waste no more time digging into this).
| I guess this is true, lots of different clients all behaving the same.
| There should not be a need to dig too deep, it's a simple problem to
| both diagnose and solve. If you have thin clients with RAM >= 32 MB RAM,
| use NFS swap :-)

Ahem, I think you meant the opposite there: if RAM <= 32 MB then use NFS
swap :-)

Just a thought: Maybe it would be possible to isolate the cause of the
problem by somehow recognize when the NFS swap is actually used and take
a snapshot of the processes running on the client, together with their
footprint. This could help reveal any memory leaks or otherwise bloated

~ - Jonas

- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: