randy at _remove-spamkill_mcmurchy.com
Mon Mar 22 18:39:04 PST 2004
On Monday, March 22, 2004 at 7:00 PM, Ronald Hummelink wrote:
> There are reports the debian version of the dnotify patch is alright
> (the one from sgi supposedly has some memory leak or something when fam
> monitors remote stuff)
> Might want to look into that, fam is MUUUUCH more sweet with dnotify
> then with polling.
What I get out of the FAM information on the SGI web site is that
FAM has a problem with directories containing over 1024 files and/or
directories when using dnotify instead of polling.
Reports are that FAM will hang using 100% CPU until the daemon is
restarted if it encounters *some* situations of directories with
a large number of files.
When FAM is built without using dnotify there is no problem, however,
as Ronald points out, FAM (or any process monitoring file activity)
is better using a kernel monitoring process versus polling.
FAM is also capable of monitoring using IMON kernel support, but my
understanding is that you have to apply a kernel patch to get IMON
support. Not worth it to me.
The newest release of FAM (2.7.0) is not compatible with the existing
patch on the SGI website. SGI claims to use a "feature-based configure
script rather than an operating-system based script". It has rendered
the current patch useless.
It is beyond the desire I have for FAM to try to "fix" the patch to
be used with 2.7.0.
So, bottom line is this about FAM (my observations only, I could be
full of sh*t):
1. Use version 2.6.10 (current BLFS installation) and the dnotify
patch unless you're having problems with the known limitations using
2. Use the new version, 2.7.0 and live with FAM polling.
I choose #1.
My largest directories are /usr/bin and /usr/lib. They don't exceed
this magic 1024 limit (yet).
rml at rmlinux: ~/build: ls -l /usr/bin / wc -l
rml at rmlinux: ~/build: ls -l /usr/lib / wc -l
Tushar: maybe you should consider leaving FAM 2.6.10 in the book
for now, with a mention that 2.7.0 is available. Hopefully, others
have input on this.
My whole point with bringing this issue up in the first place is
the fact that Tushar's bootscripts (using FAMD instead of FAM)
won't work with the existing BLFS FAM installation.
More information about the blfs-dev