[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 19990601: Linux LDM memory problem (fwd)
- Subject: Re: 19990601: Linux LDM memory problem (fwd)
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:12:54 -0600 (MDT)
David,
How about trying not to use a memmapped queue file. Set the environment
variable NO_MMMAP = 1 . One would have to do a make distclean and rerun
configure. It might be better or worst, It would be interested to find
out. Keep me informed.
Robb...
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Unidata Support wrote:
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> >To: address@hidden
> >From: David Wojtowicz <address@hidden>
> >Subject: Linux LDM memory problem (fwd)
> >Organization: .
> >Keywords: 199906012023.OAA18453
>
>
>
> FYI: Looks like I'm not the only one with the Linux/LDM memory
> problem...
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:05:58 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mark Tucker <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Linux LDM memory problem
>
>
> David,
> Hi, I work for the Meteorology Dept. at Lyndon State College. I ran
> across your e-mail in the support archives on Unidata's site. We are also
> running our ldm on Linux (kernel 2.0.36). Having only worked with the ldm
> on Linux I assumed that the behavior I was seeing was normal for the ldm.
> I just thought I'd pass along my experiences where they were similar to
> yours. Unfortunately, I don't have any real solutions for you but maybe
> something here will be useful.
> We run with a queue of about 400MB for our ldm for quite a while.
> Stopping the ldm definitely takes some time and disk writing for
> everything to exit completely. This generally takes several minutes for
> every thing to settle down. Our server is a bit overkill (PII-400, 512MB
> RAM, Ultra2-Wide SCSI disks) and I think this is probably the only thing
> that keeps shutdown times for the ldm from taking half an hour.
> Running "ldmadmin restart" has never worked correctly as far as I can
> remember because of this (at least, that has been my assumption).
> Because our server has ample memory there is enough room for
> the file cache and buffer to co-exist with the other processes. I think
> thisis the main reason that we have not seen some of the delays in working
> interactively on the ldm server that you mentioned. The 2.2 series of
> Linux kernels are supposed to be more aggressive about caching disk
> activity so I suspect that this problem will be made worse, not better, as
> those of us running linux upgrade our systems.
>
> Mark Tucker
> Information Technology
> Lyndon State College
> address@hidden
>
>
>
>
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
===============================================================================
Robb Kambic Unidata Program Center
Software Engineer III Univ. Corp for Atmospheric Research
address@hidden WWW: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/
===============================================================================