Re: Finding the Bottleneck
More buffers makes sense... but i wonder what KIND of buffers those are.
Only if they are disk buffers would the performance be increased.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcin Owsiany" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Hi,
> > AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate
> > (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free
> > into buffers anyway.
> > So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory, it or wouldn't
> > allocate so much there anyway, right?
> Right, it probably would not allocate any more memory for the
> processes themselves, but my point is that "the bigger buffers,
> the better performance". I guess that 68 MB buffers isn't that
> much for such a heavily loaded machine.
> PS: No need to CC to me.
> Marcin Owsiany <email@example.com>
> GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact