Re: Finding the Bottleneck
I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram, wouldn't
it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has 0kb in
swap, and still has free memory.
Here is a recent top:
101 processes: 97 sleeping, 3 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 9.4% user, 14.0% system, 0.5% nice, 76.1% idle
Mem: 128236K total, 125492K used, 2744K free, 69528K buffers
Swap: 289160K total, 0K used, 289160K free, 10320K cached
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
5361 qmails 4 0 2728 2728 368 R 5.6 2.1 68:58 qmail-send
11911 root 4 0 1052 1052 800 R 1.7 0.8 0:00 top
165 root 1 0 2640 2640 860 S 0.9 2.0 25:00 named
5367 qmailr 17 0 464 464 324 S 0.9 0.3 6:58 qmail-rspawn
1178 root 0 0 832 832 708 S 0.3 0.6 4:30 syslogd
5365 qmaill 0 0 476 476 404 S 0.1 0.3 6:12 splogger
5368 qmailq 1 0 396 396 332 S 0.1 0.3 5:20 qmail-clean
11988 qmailr 1 0 512 512 432 S 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
11993 qmailr 4 0 512 512 432 R 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
11994 qmailr 4 0 512 512 432 S 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
11996 qmailr 5 0 512 512 432 R 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
11997 qmailr 8 0 512 512 432 S 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
11998 qmailr 9 0 512 512 432 R 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
11999 qmailr 10 0 512 512 432 R 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
12000 qmailr 10 0 512 512 432 S 0.1 0.3 0:00 qmail-remote
1 root 0 0 532 532 472 S 0.0 0.4 0:07 init
2 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:07 kflushd
I hope you can read the above because it won't be formatted right when I
send it, but hopefully you get the idea. As far as I know, linux will
allocate as much free ram to the buffers, rather than just leave it empty.
So ~68M in buffers sort of tells me that it has plenty of memory. I mean,
if you think more would really help, we could try more ram, but I doubt
the bottleneck really is with the memory limit...?
Anyway... as for the raid solution, is there anything I should look out
for BEFORE i start implementing it? Like any particular disk or ext2
settings that would benefit the mail queue in any way? Don't want to get
everything set up, only to find I missed something critical that you
already thought of!
Sincerely,
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Coker" <russell@coker.com.au>
To: "Jason Lim" <maillist@jasonlim.com>; "Rich Puhek"
<rpuhek@etnsystems.com>
Cc: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
> while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
> sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
> would help much, would it? I think even if more ram is put in, it will
> just use at buffers..... er.... that MIGHT help, right? Would be an
> easy solution if 256M would help get an extra 20% performance :-)
More cache is very likely to help, and it requires little expense and
little work to add another 128M of RAM to the machine. I'm not sure that
you'll get 20% more performance, I'd expect maybe 10% - but it depends on
the load patterns.
For a cheap and easy way to add performance adding RAM is the best thing
you can do IMHO.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: