- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest lev...
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 06:19 AM
12-09-2005 06:19 AM
Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Shouldn't be better to have, say, inodes at 64000 when just 10000 are being used? That way you never have to worry if the inode limit will sometime be reached.
How costly is in system resources to have maxusers at its maximum (or ninode, pty, and so on)?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 06:26 AM
12-09-2005 06:26 AM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Increasing kernel parameter to a high value can cause problem. As it needs to reserve swap and to occupy Physical memory.
Hence kernel parameters needs to understand as per current usuage and need to configure accordingly if required to increase. For system table usuage glance -t , can be use.
for maxusers : A good value for most systems to start with 200 , this is used to size many other tunables , so dont go overboard.
Hth,
Raj.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 06:48 AM
12-09-2005 06:48 AM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Some kernel parameters are "fences" that provide boundries to prevent one user or process from monopolising or consuming too much of a resource, such as memory or procesor; or the number of open files; or the number of processes that can be spawned. As such, "fences make good neighbors".
Other kenrel parameters allocate table slots and as such, the more allocated, the more overhead (usually memory) needed to support the larger allocation. Thus, why waste a resource like memory to reserve slots that you aren't going to use.
The tunable kernel manpages do an excellent job, on a tunable by tunable basis, of describing the effects of inflating or deflating various values. Have a look on a per-tunable basis:
http://docs.hp.com/en/TKP-90202/index.html
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 07:28 AM
12-09-2005 07:28 AM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Ontop of the above link, also peruse "HP-UX Kernel Tuning and Performance Guide":
http://docs.hp.com/en/1219/tuningwp.html
Main reason you have tight kernel parameters is to optimize performance.
Rgds...Geoff
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 08:05 AM
12-09-2005 08:05 AM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Marlou
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 08:43 AM
12-09-2005 08:43 AM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
A more reasonable parameter might be nfile. If 5000 is good, why not make it 50,000 or even 5,000,000? The reason is that a huge amount of kernel space will be needed, spac e that cannot be used for anything except open file descriptors. If your typical busy system uses 5000 open files, then setting nfile to 8000 or even 10,000 is reasonable, but 100,000 would be a big waste.
And for 32bit kernels like 10.20, the kernel cannot exceed about 12 megs in size or the kernel won't boot. So it makes sense to adjust the values as needed. The fence limits (like maxdsiz or maxuprc or maxfiles) can be set to very high values without problems as they do not allocate space. Fences are used primarily in development systems where programming errors might consume massive system resources.
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 11:00 AM
12-09-2005 11:00 AM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Do you know how many kernel Bytes/kBytes are used by each:
-inode
-file (from maxfiles)
Regards
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 12:06 PM
12-09-2005 12:06 PM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
The paper entitled "Common Misconfigured HP-UX Resources" ( http://www.docs.hp.com/en/5580/Misconfigured_Resources.pdf
) addresses your questions about inode size, memory consumption for open inodes, and the 'ninode' table.
Your second question about the overhead of the 'nfile' table and its relationship to 'maxfiles' brings to light another lesson.
Increasing the 'nfile' table (for the number of open files on a system) is a common need with database and web servers. The "Tunable Kernel Parameters" guide ( http://www.docs.hp.com/en/TKP-90202/TKP-90202.pdf ) notes that on a per-slot basis the amount of memory needed for 'nfile' entries is small and one should be generous in assigning values to 'nfile'.
By default, 'nfile' is calculated based partly on 'maxusers'.
The 'maxusers' define (constant) is intended to represent the number of users you expect to have on your system at any one time. Yet, if you use its value to calculate an inflated value for 'nfile' you also increase the default value of 'ninode' (which represents the number of in-memory open inodes allowed).
Thus, perhaps without realizing it, using 'maxusers' to inflate 'nfile' which uses relatively small amounts of memory, can lead to using large amounts of memory for 'ninode'.
This is another reason why you don't capraciously want to set kernel parameters and constants to their maximum values without understanding the cascading effects.
Rather, in cases where larger values of 'nfile' are needed, dispose of the formula and hard-set 'nfile' to a value that satisties your requirements. Ditto for 'ninode'.
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2005 06:30 PM
12-09-2005 06:30 PM
Re: Why not kernel parameters at their highest level?
Changing kernel parameters to improper or inappropriate values or combinations of values can cause data loss, system panics, and other (possibly very obscure and/or difficult to diagnose) operating anomalies.
Before altering the value of any configurable kernel parameter, be sure you know the implications of making the change.
Dont set any system parameter to a value outside the allowable range for the parameter. (SAM refuses to store values outside the allowable range.)
Many parameters interact, and their values must be selected in a balanced way.
With Regards,
Siva.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-10-2005 12:01 PM
12-10-2005 12:01 PM