Just a guess but have you tried:
"man options"
--gives you the low down a dirty reasons for these options

best docs normally come from the system itself, although I've seen that O'reilly site too and it helped me when I first got started.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 23:01:16 -0500
"Daniel Ouellet" <danielpresscom.net> wrote:

> Hi Could I ask you about the following.
>
> option NMBCLUSTERS="8192"
> option BUFCACHEPERCENT=45
> option NKMEMCLUSTERS=0x4000
>
> I keep looking in the archive for more information and I only find a bit of
> stuff on O'reilly sites.
>
> The option BUFCACHEPERCENT=45 is recommended by O'Reilly and I see in some
> place there is discussion that said it is good and some that said it is bad.
> But neither provide explications as to why in either way, other then more
> cache help and some said the system is not design to support more cache and
> will actually be affected adversely and be slower.
>
> I have been researching this for a while and I can't be sure either way. I
> run a system for about 2 months with the 45% cache and didn't have problem,
> but it wasn't in heavy use.
>
> I would love to know from a developer if possible if the cache option and
> the other two helps or not on a system that would be heavy use with 2Gb of
> RAM already in there.
>
> One thing that I sure found was that
>
> option MAX_KMAPENT=0x1000
>
> is really not good to use but no explications are provided.
>
> I guess I am trying to understand the why of either side and I am without
> success so far.
>
> If you think it would be worth providing some explications, I would love it.
> I also understand that time is rare and I may not get any answer to this
> question and that would be fine as well.
>
> I am trying to understand it right, but I can't dig real good reason to use
> or not to use it.
>
> Any one out there could put some light on this for me?
>
> Many thanks for any answers as small they would be.
>
> Daniel

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]