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

Re: Max number of consoles that can be supported with one conserver?

Travis Campbell travis.campbell@amd.com
Tue, 4 Jul 2006 03:17:00 -0700 (PDT)

Bryan Stansell wrote:
  something like 64 is
probably a good start.  see if that helps things (maybe even go to 96 or
128).  it's all a balancing act.  but, if you haven't done this yet,
it'll bring the process count down by a factor of 4 and should trigger
less of a spike.

Thanks.  I'll try that.  What's the downside to going high on this?  I
see the faq mentions the possibility of a "lock up" delaying activity.
What would cause a lock up?

the HUP processing is certainly not ideal. it seems to work decently (a livable, but quite noticable, delay) on a sparc t1 with just over 1000 consoles (using --with-maxmemb=32). that's the only hard datapoint i have beyond yours. with the machine you're talking about, i'd think you *should* be able to support 3500 consoles.

Oh, it'll certainly support it once it's up and running. We only have a problem when we go and reload the configuration.

i'd love to know if this helps. if not, what is your --with-maxmemb/-m value? (conserver -V shows it)

It's set to the default of 16.

I'll recompile with higher settings on Wednesday and give various settings
a try.


travis.campbell@amd.com    |  "In  theory, there is  no difference between
Sr. CAD Systems Engineer   |  theory and practice.  In practice there is."
AMD Silicon Design Systems |                                 -- Yogi Berra